Oral
Answers to
Questions

COP26

The President of COP26 was asked—

COP26 Outcomes

Richard Thomson: What steps the Government plan to take to help ensure the long-term effectiveness of COP26 outcomes after the transition to (a) a new Prime Minister and (b) an Egyptian presidency of COP.

Alok Sharma: The UK is working closely with Egypt and other partners to ensure that the commitments made by countries at COP26 are delivered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK will hold the COP presidency until COP27 in November, and in the remaining four months we will continue to urge nations to implement the promises that they made in Glasgow.

Richard Thomson: The outgoing Prime Minister’s commitment to taking tangible climate change action has always seemed rather suspect, and, rather worryingly, the contenders to replace him seem to be even less committed. The President of COP26 himself, in a weekend interview with The Observer, described the commitment as “lukewarm”. Will he tell us who exactly he had in mind for that soubriquet?

Alok Sharma: Let me say first that the Prime Minister has been totally resolute in pursuing the net zero agenda, which is about delivering not just an environmental benefit but jobs and economic growth across the country. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Conservative party leadership; certainly from what I have seen and heard, all three of the remaining contenders are fully committed to that agenda.

Philip Dunne: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the ability of the current structure of government to achieve the ambitious target of the nationally determined contribution, namely a 68% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 levels by 2030?

Alok Sharma: My right hon. Friend has raised this issue with me before. It will of course be up to the new Prime Minister to see how he or she wants to strengthen the structures of government, but the key aim is for us to deliver on the commitments that we have made , and that is what we will be judged on at the next election.

Caroline Lucas: The long-term effectiveness of COP26 outcomes derives at least in part from the credibility of pledges made in Glasgow and the serious implementation of climate policies at home, especially while we still hold the presidency. Does the President of COP26 share my concern about yesterday’s High Court ruling that the UK’s net zero strategy was unlawful because it failed to meet the Government’s obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008? Is he worried about the message that that sends to other countries, and will he use his best offices to ensure that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy does now fulfil its obligations as it is required to do?

Alok Sharma: Obviously, I saw the judgment as well. Let me first emphasise that the net zero strategy itself remains Government policy. That is not what has been squashed. The judgment was about providing information on the percentage of emissions reductions coming from individual policy elements. Of course BEIS is looking at this, and it will have to respond in due course.

Neil Hudson: Does the President of COP26 agree that the extreme hot weather this week serves as a stark reminder of the realities and danger of climate change, and the need for the UK and the rest of the world to strengthen their resolve to achieve the objectives set at COP26?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is entirely right. What we have seen over the last couple of days here is what many millions of people across the world experience on a regular basis. That is why it is so important to ensure that the commitments that have been garnered internationally are delivered on, but of course we also need to ensure that we do that ourselves.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow President of COP26, Ed Miliband.

Ed Miliband: In the last two days, we have seen that the climate emergency is here and now, with wildfires raging across our country, tracks and runways melting, schools closing and the government under-prepared, and yet some people aspiring to the highest office in the land have suggested that tackling the climate crisis is a luxury that can be delayed—an indulgence, a niche project. Such people would put the safety of our citizens at risk. They are deeply irresponsible and they are economically illiterate. Does the President of COP26 agree that, given the demonstrable threat that we so obviously face, there is no place in serious political parties for such dangerous folly?

Alok Sharma: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I did make an intervention at the weekend. As I have said, from what I have seen and heard, all three of the remaining contenders for the leadership of the Conservative party and to be our next Prime Minister are committed to the “net zero by 2050” agenda, and also to the near-term policy commitments to get there. The final two will have an opportunity to set out further details over the coming weeks.

Ed Miliband: The President of COP26 was so appalled by his own party’s leadership contest that he threatened to resign, and it is no wonder. He says that all the candidates are committed to the net zero agenda,  but only this morning the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), the frontrunner in the leadership race, said that he would double down on the onshore wind ban because of the “distress and disruption” that onshore wind causes.
What is causing distress is the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. What is causing disruption is the most extreme weather in our country’s history. Onshore wind is a vital tool in tackling these crises, but the bizarre state of the Tory party means that the former Chancellor panders to the fanatics and sides with the sceptics. Will the President of COP26 now repudiate that position and condemn it for the dangerous nonsense that it is?

Alok Sharma: I am not really in a position to repudiate anybody else’s proposals—[Interruption.] I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have a clear plan for expanding offshore wind. There is another 32 GW—[Interruption.] I will come on to that. Another 32 GW is effectively in the pipeline. In solving the energy security strategy, we need to keep everything on the table. There is already 14 GW of onshore installed across the country, and where communities are positively welcoming of onshore in return for reduced bills, that is an issue that we should keep on the table.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

Deidre Brock: The recent Climate Change Committee’s progress report concludes that the UK Government’s net zero strategy contains warm words but little tangible progress, and that it will not be fully credible until the Government develop contingency plans such as encouraging reduced consumer demand for high carbon activities. It also recommends carrying out a net zero tax review to see how that might best support the transition by correcting the distortions that often penalise low-carbon technologies. Do the Government intend to take action on these specific recommendations, and what will the President do to ensure that the next Prime Minister and Chancellor urgently act on all the Committee’s recommendations?

Alok Sharma: Obviously, the Government are looking at a response to this. Let me make a general point, which is that I believe the current Prime Minister has shown leadership on this issue. These policies work if there is leadership right from the top, so I will certainly want to see from any future Prime Minister a laser-like focus on ensuring that we are delivering on our policies on net zero emissions but at the same time pushing forward on more jobs, more growth and more inward investment, which we have seen coming in.

Finance for Loss and Damage

Alison Thewliss: What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) his counterparts in other wealthy nations on mobilising finance for loss and damage.

Alok Sharma: In June at the Bonn intersessional meeting, the Glasgow dialogue on loss and damage was launched to discuss the funding arrangements for addressing loss and damage. This will continue to be a critical forum to discuss practical ways in which finance can be scaled up and effectively delivered.

Alison Thewliss: This week’s record-breaking temperatures across the UK show that climate change is on our doorstep, but many of the world’s poorest countries have been dealing with this climate crisis for years. The cost of not acting on climate change is spiralling out of control, so can I ask what specific steps the right hon. Gentleman is taking to put Scotland’s world-leading approach to funding loss and damage on the agenda for COP27?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Lady knows, at COP26 we agreed a way forward with the Glasgow dialogue, and that took place in Bonn. I am quite sure that the issue of loss and damage will feature highly at COP27, in whichever forum. It is vital that we also support developing nations to make clean energy transitions, and that is something we are doing through the just energy transition partnerships with South Africa and other countries such as India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Senegal.

COP Presidency: Objectives

Afzal Khan: What his objectives are for the remainder of the UK’s COP presidency.

Gerald Jones: What his objectives are for the remainder of the UK’s COP presidency.

Alok Sharma: The Glasgow climate pact was a historic agreement that the United Kingdom forged among almost 200 countries. Our presidency year has been all about getting nations to deliver on the commitments they made at COP26 across the areas of mitigation, adaptation and finance, and we will continue this work up to COP27.

Afzal Khan: The heatwave this week shows the need to take serious and immediate action on climate change. The Glasgow call for a phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies is one prompt way in which the Government can swiftly work towards delivering net zero plans. Does the Minister agree that instead of fossil fuel subsidies, the Government should focus on home-grown, cheap, clean energy sources that guarantee our energy security?

Alok Sharma: The Government are focusing on that, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the energy security strategy that was published a few weeks ago, and also to the recent contracts for difference auction process for offshore wind, which delivered a price for offshore wind that is almost 70% lower than in 2015 and four times less than the current gas price. The future has to be green energy.

Gerald Jones: Our schools often set a great example in raising awareness of the climate emergency. On my recent visit to Ysgol Rhyd-y-Grug in my constituency, the pupils told me of their concerns about deforestation in the Amazon and about the 1 million species at risk of extinction. We must urgently halt and reverse this loss, so will the right hon. Gentleman support the call, led by my hon. and right hon. Friends on the shadow Front Bench, for a “net zero with nature” test to align all public spending and infrastructure decisions with our climate and nature commitments?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we got an agreement at COP26 from more than 140 countries, representing more than 90% of the world’s forests, to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. We now need to make sure this is delivered, and we are looking at mechanisms to keep this issue on the table so that countries are seen to be delivering on their commitments on an annual basis.

Oliver Heald: The COP26 President will have been as struck as I was at COP26 by the plight of low-lying island nations, and he will have been moved by how they are doing everything they can to protect themselves through nature-based solutions. Above all, they need the large, developed countries to tackle climate change. Will he redouble his efforts to persuade some of these large, developed countries to do better?

Alok Sharma: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The small island developing states face a very acute climate emergency that is putting many millions of lives and livelihoods at risk. Yes, we need every country to come forward and deliver on its commitments, and particularly the biggest emitters: the G20.

Andrew Murrison: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published some excellent new targets for incineration in March. Will the COP26 President follow through on that and make a moratorium on waste incineration one of his objectives for the remainder of his presidency?

Alok Sharma: In this role, as my right hon. Friend knows, I am trying to corral international action. He raises an important point, and I will make sure it is raised with the appropriate Department.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow Minister, Kerry McCarthy.

Kerry McCarthy: Last month the Climate Change Committee issued a scathing annual progress report warning of “major policy failures” and “scant evidence of delivery” on net zero. This week, as we have heard, the Government had to be dragged to court to be told their climate plans are so woefully inadequate that they are unlawful and must be revised.
What kind of leadership does it set if the country holding the COP presidency cannot get its own house in order? I know the COP President will say that the Conservative party’s leadership candidates have paid lip service to net zero, but does he really have any confidence that things will get better?

Alok Sharma: The Climate Change Committee has described the net zero strategy as “ambitious” and
“the world’s most comprehensive plan to reach net zero”.
I have discussed the legal findings, but the principle is right. We need to do everything we can to make sure we deal with this issue. The last few days have been a real wake-up call for everyone in this country, and it is what many millions of people across the world experience on a regular basis. We have to deal with this issue.

Climate Targets: Energy Efficiency

Rachel Hopkins: What assessment he has made of the potential role of energy efficiency in meeting the UK’s climate targets.

Meg Hillier: What assessment he has made of the potential role of energy efficiency in meeting the UK’s climate targets.

Tony Lloyd: What assessment he has made of the potential role of energy efficiency in meeting the UK’s climate targets.

Alok Sharma: Buildings are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in our country, accounting for around 22% of total UK emissions. Energy efficiency measures are, indeed, a vital lever to drive down emissions, energy demand and, ultimately, bills.

Rachel Hopkins: Increasing the number of energy-efficient homes will help us to meet our climate targets and reduce bills. Around 70% of homes in Luton have an energy performance rating of band D or below, and these homes are more likely to include our town’s most deprived households. What discussions has the COP26 President had with the latest Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about ensuring the green rhetoric on homes is equitable so that everyone can benefit from an energy-efficient home?

Alok Sharma: The Government are making £6.6 billion available over this Parliament to improve energy efficiency, and nearly half the homes in England are now rated band C or above, compared with 14% in 2010. On the wider point, we need an even bigger focus on energy efficiency in homes and buildings, as it will also help our energy security by driving down demand and bringing down people’s bills.

Meg Hillier: The Government have had a series of failed programmes on home insulation: the green new deal failed, and the recent green homes grant scheme failed, as the Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly reported. Does the Minister have any confidence that the Government will listen and tackle this major cause of emissions? If it is not tackled, it will put a serious dent in achieving the target of net zero by 2050.

Alok Sharma: The Government will, of course, respond to the report on the green homes grant, but I point out that some elements of it—the local authority delivery element and the social housing decarbonisation fund—have provided significant amounts of funding.

Tony Lloyd: The COP President will know that the bulk of buildings that are around today will still be around in 2030 and 2050. Most of them are grossly inadequately insulated; even new buildings are not being built to an acceptable standard. When are we going to see some action on this crucial agenda?

Alok Sharma: I have set out the amount of funding the Government are providing over this Parliament—£6.6 billion on energy efficiency. I very much share the view that we need to be doing even more on this,  particularly as we face energy security issues and energy prices are so high; more insulation in homes will deliver lower bills for households.

Jacob Young: On energy efficiency, decarbonising in-home heating remains one of our biggest challenges in reaching our net zero 2050 target, so will the Minister join me in welcoming plans for a hydrogen village by 2025? Will he also have a chat with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary to encourage him to back our plans for one in Redcar and Cleveland?

Alok Sharma: I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of green energy and, in particular, hydrogen in his area. I wish him luck with the plans and of course I will raise this matter the Business Secretary.

Richard Graham: As has been pointed out, previous programmes to improve insulation in homes, under either this party or the Labour Party, have not delivered what any of us would have hoped. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if this was targeted effectively at the homes of those who suffer most, many of whom will also be paying unacceptable increases in their energy bills, we could have a very effective way of improving insulation, reducing energy use and improving energy efficiency?

Alok Sharma: I agree with my hon. Friend; this measure will not only lower bills, but reduce demand for energy at this critical point, where energy security is so important around the world and also in our country.

Bob Blackman: One way we could improve energy efficiency is by ensuring that new homes are energy-efficient. Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on developers to ensure that they are called to follow modern efficiency standards rather than the old ones?

Alok Sharma: Having modern, up-to-date standards is vital, and I will make sure I raise this with the appropriate Department.

Topical Questions

John Penrose: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: On this day, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his domestic and international leadership on tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. He has championed both during his time as Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, and he charmed, cajoled and corralled his international counterparts to ensure that more than 90% of the global economy is now covered by net zero targets. Under his premiership, the UK forged the  historic Glasgow climate pact, bringing together almost 200 countries, and he has been the driving force to deliver a net zero emissions economy. He has championed the creation of well-paid green jobs, bringing in billions of pounds of private sector investment in the UK. In all these areas, he leaves a legacy to be proud of.

John Penrose: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Whitetail project in Teesside, where an Allam cycle electricity generating plant will burn either gas or coal in pure oxygen, with zero carbon emissions? Does he agree that projects such as this ought to be fully compatible with not only our net zero commitments, but improved energy security, and that they could therefore form a long-term and permanent part of our future energy generating needs?

Alok Sharma: I am indeed aware of that project. My hon. Friend will know that the Government’s innovation funding has supported the development of Allam cycle power generation technology since 2012. Almost £5 million has been provided to fund research and development, and £1.3 million has been provided for technical studies.

Stephen Farry: The President well knows that tackling the cost of living crisis and achieving net zero go hand in hand. Will he go further and endorse a green new deal that brings together job creation, social justice and tackling climate change?

Alok Sharma: As a Government, we have a significant number of policies that are delivering, and we need to make sure that we double down on that. As I have said, we will be judged at the next general election on those policies and whether we have delivered.

Julian Sturdy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that net zero should be achieved through rolling out low-carbon technology and scientific solutions such as the gene editing Bill, rather than measures that dampen economic growth and depress living standards?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Green technologies and innovations will help us to achieve the net zero target He made reference to gene editing, and I would also reference the recent CFD auction, which has delivered record renewables capacity in this country.

Debbie Abrahams: Well insulated homes protect against extreme heat as well as extreme cold, while reducing energy demand and cutting bills, emissions and fossil fuel imports. So why are the Government delaying their national energy company obligation 4 programme, with 56,000 households potentially missing out?

Alok Sharma: As I have pointed out, the Government are doing a significant amount on energy efficiency. Of course we should always look to see what more can be done.

Peter Aldous: Will my right hon. Friend outline the discussions he has had with his colleagues in Government so as to act on the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation on the need for further support aligned to net zero to help people with their energy bills?

Alok Sharma: As my hon. Friend knows, support  is being provided to help households. In particular,  the most vulnerable households will receive at least £1,200 pounds of support. Of course, we also need to  look at further energy-efficiency measures, and I am sure the new Prime Minister and Chancellor will look at all of that.

Ruth Jones: Yesterday, a court found that the Government’s net zero strategy was unlawful because it included only 95% of the emissions reductions required to meet the sixth carbon budget and did not include the detail required to enable Parliament to properly scrutinise it. What will the Minister do to rectify that, and which aspects of the strategy will he strengthen now?

Alok Sharma: As I said in response to an earlier question, the net zero strategy is not what has been quashed. Obviously the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will look to respond to the judgment.

Harriett Baldwin: I commend my right hon. Friend for his amazing service as COP26 President. Will he make it his objective to ban the sale of Chinese lanterns across the UK? Across our tinder-dry land they are simply acting as unguided flamethrowers.

Alok Sharma: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments. I will make sure that the issue of these lanterns is raised with the appropriate Department domestically.

Rupa Huq: The President showed great leadership at COP26, which we all respect him for. Will he do the same again and cut back on a project that is polluting the lungs of both his and my constituents? Will he please revisit the issue of the biggest CO emitter in the whole of Europe and think again about the new runway at Heathrow?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Lady knows, my role as COP President is to corral the international community. She has raised a question, and I am sure the Department for Transport will respond.

Selaine Saxby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dramatic increase in fuel prices presents opportunities for decarbonising fleets and vehicles in key sectors such as social care?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, decarbonising the transport sector, along with other sectors, should be a key priority going forward.

Barry Gardiner: The recent Carbon Tracker report set out the exposure of each financial sector across the world to stranded assets—over $1 trillion in total. Will the COP President be engaging with each of the heads of the financial sectors—such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the London stock exchange—to ensure that they cope with that problem?

Alok Sharma: The private sector is very focused on the issue of the move to net zero. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in Glasgow, $130 trillion of assets were   signed up to net zero. Anyone investing in assets that might end up being stranded has to be very clear about the financial decisions they are taking.

Jerome Mayhew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that establishing a price for carbon would give the free market the signal it needs to invest in low-carbon alternatives across the economy? Does he also agree that a carbon border adjustment mechanism is a necessary first step to achieve that?

Alok Sharma: I know my hon. Friend has raised this issue previously. Tackling carbon leakage is a vital matter. As he is aware, Her Majesty’s Treasury will be launching a consultation later this year and setting out a range of carbon leakage mitigation options, which includes looking at a carbon border adjustment mechanism.

Barry Sheerman: Am I allowed to say to the COP26 President that many of us on the Labour Benches think that he has done a darned good job? If he survives the present wrangling in the Conservative party, will he make every effort to come back and “grassroot” what we are trying to do about climate change in every town, city and community? Let us have 500 sustainable towns and cities in this country. Does he agree with that?

Alok Sharma: In the words of Gloria Gaynor, “I will survive”. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is that tackling the climate emergency is an issue for all of us—for Governments, civil society and individuals—and we all need to play our part.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
I would also like to welcome Lord Mackay, who is retiring today. He served many distinguished years as Lord Chancellor.
Before I call Kim Leadbeater to ask the first question, it is only fitting to note that this is likely to be the final time that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) addresses the House as Prime Minister. I wish him and his family all the best for the future. We have been through many dark times in this House, and none more so than through the pandemic. That will always be remembered because of what this House did and because of the way that you conducted those duties during those dark times, Prime Minister.
I understand that Members will have differing views about the Prime Minister’s performance and legacy, and those views will be sincerely and passionately held, but I remind Members that our constituents and others around the world watch these proceedings. Let us conduct them in a respectful manner, focusing on issues and policies rather than personalities. I take this opportunity to remind Members of the words of Erskine May that
“good temper and moderation are the characteristics of the parliamentary debate.”
I expect to see that reflected today in the proceedings.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Kim Leadbeater: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 July.

Boris Johnson: Today marks the 40th anniversary of the bombings in Hyde Park and Regent’s Park. Tomorrow sees the 50th anniversary of Bloody Friday. Such terror by the Provisional IRA was barbaric and shameful, bringing untold grief to countless families. Our thoughts are with all those who lost loved ones during the troubles. We as a Government remain determined to help build a better shared future for all the people of Northern Ireland.
I spoke to the chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council last night and this morning about the heroic work of firefighters in recent days. I know the whole House will want to thank them and all our frontline services who have been working hard to keep us safe. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making an oral statement later.
I know colleagues will wish to join me in wishing England’s Lionesses well in their quarter-final match against Spain in Brighton this evening. I also know the House will want to congratulate Jake Wightman, who produced a stunning run to take gold in the 1,500 metres at the world championships in Oregon.
As you rightly say, Mr Speaker, last week I told the House that last week’s PMQs was possibly my last. This week probably—certainly—will be my last PMQs from this Dispatch Box, or any other Dispatch Box. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I will have further such meetings later today.

Kim Leadbeater: Summer recess gives all parliamentarians an opportunity to reflect on our ability to uphold the seven principles of public life: selflessness, openness, objectivity, honesty, integrity, accountability and leadership. Those are fine principles, but public trust in politicians is at an all-time low. Will the Prime Minister be using the next few weeks to personally consider why that could be? As the unedifying fight for his job continues, if those who are vying to replace him were to draw on his wise counsel—and why wouldn’t they?—what advice would he give to ensure that the people we serve receive far better than they have from this Government?

Boris Johnson: I am afraid I did not quite catch the last part of the hon. Lady’s question, but I will be using the next few weeks to do what I think the people of this country would expect: to drive forward the agenda on which we were elected in 2019 and on which I think the Labour party particularly fears the Conservative party, and that is the agenda of uniting and levelling up, and making sure that we invest in places that for decades were betrayed by Labour and left behind. That is what the Conservatives are going to do, and that is why we are going to win again.

Luke Evans: Russia’s war in Ukraine continues. Now Turkey has withdrawn its opposition to Sweden and Finland joining NATO. What assessment does my right hon. Friend make of the short and long-term security of Europe now that that has happened?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. The accession of both countries will be good for them and make all our allies safer, and I think it will make the whole Euro-Atlantic security area stronger. I am proud of the role the UK has played in that accession.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: I start by saying to the Prime Minister that I know that the relationship between a Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition is never easy, and this one has proved no exception to the rule, but I take this opportunity to wish him, his wife and his family the best for the future.
I put on record our gratitude to the fire and rescue services for all their courageous work yesterday in extreme temperatures. All our thoughts are with those affected by the fires, particularly those who have lost their homes. I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the bombing in Hyde Park and the other IRA bombings.
I also join the Prime Minister in his comments about the Lionesses. The coverage starts at 7.30 tonight on BBC One, and I am sure the whole country will be roaring them on. For anyone who does not fancy football, “EastEnders” is on, so if they would rather watch outrageous characters taking lumps out of themselves, they have a choice: Albert Square or the Tory leadership debates on catch-up. On that topic, why does the Prime Minister think those vying to replace him decided to pull out of the Sky News debate last night?

Boris Johnson: I am not following this thing particularly closely, but my impression is that there has been quite a lot of debate already, and I think the public have ample opportunity to view the talent, any one of which—as I have said before—would, like some household detergent, wipe the floor with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Today happens to be just about the anniversary of the exit from lockdown last year, and do you remember what he said? He said—[Interruption.] No, I am going to remind him. He said it was “reckless”. It was because we were able to take that decision, supported by every single one of those Conservative candidates, opposed by him, that we had the fastest economic growth in the G7 and we are now able to help families up and down the country. If we had listened to him, it would not have been possible, and I do not think they will be listening to him either.

Keir Starmer: Well, I am impressed the Prime Minister managed to get through that with a straight face, actually. I think the truth is this: they organised a TV debate because they thought it would be a great chance for the public to hear from the candidates first hand, then disaster struck because the public actually heard from the candidates first hand.
But I am interested in what the Prime Minister makes of the battle for his job, so let me start with a simple one. Does he agree with his former Chancellor that plans put forward by the other candidates are nothing more than the “fantasy economics of unfunded” spending “promises”?

Boris Johnson: Well, Labour know all about fantasy economics, because they have already committed to £94 billion of extra tax and spending, which every household in this country would have to pay for to the tune of about £2,100. It is thanks to the former Chancellor’s management of the economy—thanks to this Government’s management of the economy—that we had growth in May of 0.5%. We have more people in paid employment than at any time in the history of this country. I am proud to be leaving office right now with unemployment at or near a 50-year low. When they left office, it was at 8%. That is the difference between them and us.

Keir Starmer: Every Labour pledge made under my leadership is fully costed. Those vying to replace him have racked up £330 billion of unfunded spending commitments.
But I do note that the Prime Minister did not agree with his former Chancellor, so what about his Foreign Secretary? She was withering about the Government’s economic record. She said:
“If Rishi has got this great plan for growth, why haven’t we seen it in his last two and a half years at the Treasury?”
That is a fair question, isn’t it, Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: I think that everybody would agree that what we saw in the last two and a half years was because of the pandemic, with the biggest fall in output for 300 years, which this Government dealt with and coped with magnificently by distributing vaccines faster than any other European Government—faster than any other major economy—which would not have been possible if we had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is why we have the fiscal firepower that is necessary to help families up and down the country, making tax cuts for virtually everybody paying national insurance contributions. There is a crucial philosophical difference between Labour and the Conservatives: under Labour, families on low incomes get most of their income from benefits; under us, they get most of it from earnings, because we believe in jobs, jobs, jobs. That is the difference.

Keir Starmer: Inflation is up again this morning and millions are struggling with the cost of living crisis, and the Prime Minister has decided to come down from his gold-wallpapered bunker for one last time to tell us that everything is fine. I am going to miss the delusion.
But his Foreign Secretary did not stop there. She also said that the former Chancellor’s 15 tax rises are leading the country into recession—and the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) was even more scathing. She said that
“our public services are in a desperate state…we cannot continue with what we’ve been doing because that clearly isn’t working.”
Has the Prime Minister told her who has been running our public services for the last 12 years?

Boris Johnson: Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing this—it is completely satirical. This is the Government who are investing £650 billion in infrastructure, skills and technology. He talks about public services; what really matters to people in this country right now is getting their appointments and their operations, fixing the covid backlogs—that is what we are doing—and fixing the ambulances. That is what he should be talking about. That is why we voted through and passed the £39 billion health and care levy, which Labour opposed. Every time something needs to be done, Labour Members try to oppose it. He is a great pointless human bollard. That is what he is.

Keir Starmer: If only it were satirical. It is what the future candidates think of his—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We want to get through PMQs, because there are quite a few Members wanting to catch my eye. It would be more helpful if we got through things.

Keir Starmer: I appreciate that Conservative Members may not want to hear what their future leader thinks of their record in government, but I think the country needs to know. If only it were satirical, Prime Minister; it is what the candidates think of the record. Among the mudslinging, there was one very important point, because the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) claimed that she warned the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) that he was handing taxpayer money directly to fraudsters in covid loans. She says that he dismissed her worries and that as a result, he “cost taxpayers £17 billion”. Does the Prime Minister think she is telling the truth?

Boris Johnson: This is one of the last blasts from Captain Hindsight, at least to me. They were the party, I remember, that was so desperate for us to be hiring their friends—they wanted a football agent and a theatrical costumier to supply personal protective equipment. Do you remember, Mr Speaker? We had to get that stuff at record speed. We produced £408 billion-worth of support for families and for businesses up and down the country. The only reason we were able to do it at such speed was that we managed the economy in a sensible and moderate way. Every time Labour has left office, unemployment has been higher. The Opposition are economically illiterate, and they would wreck the economy.

Keir Starmer: I think the message coming out of this leadership contest is pretty clear: they got us into this mess, and they have no idea how to get us out of it. The Foreign Secretary says we cannot go on with our current economic policy. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) bemoaned:
“What we’ve been doing is not good enough”,
and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) probably put it best when she simply asked:
“Why should the public trust us? We haven’t exactly covered ourselves in glory”.
Those are their words—their future leader’s words. They have trashed every part of their record in government, from dental care and ambulance response times to having the highest taxes in 70 years. What message does it send when the candidates to be Prime Minister cannot find a single decent thing to say about him, about each other or their record in government?

Boris Johnson: What does it say about the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no one can name a single policy, after three years, of the Opposition apart from putting up taxes? He is one of those pointless plastic bollards you find around a deserted roadworks on a motorway. We got Brexit done; he voted against it 48 times. We got this country fast out of covid, in spite of everything, when he would have kept us in lockdown. We are fixing social care, when the Opposition have no plan and no ideas of their own. We are now bringing forward measures, in the face of strikes, to outlaw wildcat strikes.
I can tell the House why the Leader of the Opposition does that funny wooden flapping gesture—it is because he has the union barons pulling his strings from beneath. That is the truth—£100 million.
We have restored our democracy and our independence. We have got this country through covid. I am proud to say that when it comes to tackling climate change or sticking up for Ukraine, we have led the world on the international stage. I want to thank my friends and colleagues on these Benches for everything they have done.

Rob Roberts: In September, it will be the 25th anniversary of the referendum on devolution in Scotland and Wales. One in 20 people in England on an NHS waiting list has been waiting for more than a year, but in Wales, the figure is one in five; and 75% of school leaders in Wales say that they do not have enough capital to maintain their buildings, let alone build new ones. Will the Prime Minister and Minister for the Union take this final opportunity at the Dispatch Box to agree that, in Wales at least, devolution has been a disaster?

Boris Johnson: I want devolution to work, and I have had some good conversations with Mark Drakeford, but the devolved authorities, particularly Labour in Wales, need to do their job properly.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: Mr Speaker, may I join you in wishing all the best, at his impending retirement, to—James Mackay and Beth, who are here. He has been a friend to many of us across the House, and we congratulate him on his service. I also join the Prime Minister in congratulating Jake Wightman on his success overnight in winning the 1,500 metres at the world athletics championships. What a fantastic achievement.
This week has seen historic records set across the United Kingdom, but let us look at the Prime Minister’s record-breaking efforts in office. His Tory Brexit slashed £31 billion from the economy—the biggest fall in living standards since the 1970s. People’s pay in real terms is falling at the fastest rate on record, and we have the worst economic growth forecast in the G20 outside Russia, and the highest inflation in 40 years.
Personally, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for the Union, for driving support for independence to new heights. Westminster is holding Scotland back. The economy is failing, and this Prime Minister has driven us to the brink of a  recession. Has not the Prime Minister’s legacy of catastrophic mismanagement paved the way for the end of the Union?

Boris Johnson: That is not what I observe. The right hon. Gentleman talks about records; I point to the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, the lowest unemployment for at or near 50 years as I have said, the lowest youth unemployment, and the fastest growth in the G7 last year, in spite of everything. As for the Scottish nationalists’ record, look at where they are. I am afraid to say that Scottish school standards are not what they should be, because of the failure of the SNP. It is failing people who are tragically addicted to drugs in Scotland, and the people of Scotland are facing another £900 million in tax because of the mismanagement of the SNP.

Ian Blackford: The Prime Minister might believe that nonsense, but the people of Scotland do not. They know the reality—that our NHS is the best-performing in the United Kingdom, and education standards under the SNP are moving in the right direction. [Interruption.] That is a good look, to the people of Scotland—the disdain that the Tories show for our country.
I hope that the Prime Minister will, with all his newly gained spare time, reflect on his conduct in office, and I genuinely hope that he finds some peace of mind. The fact is that as a well as being a record-breaker, the Prime Minister is a rule-breaker—illegally shutting down Parliament, partying through the pandemic, handing out PPE contracts to cronies, and unilaterally changing the ministerial code. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister is still under investigation because he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Shameful, disgraceful, and a complete waste of Scotland’s time—that is how the people of Scotland will remember this Prime Minister. Should not the Prime Minister and his Government have had their last day a long time ago? Quite simply, Downing Street is no place for a law-breaker.

Boris Johnson: On the personal abuse stuff, I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking a load of tosh, but when he has retired to his croft—which may be all too soon—I hope that he will reflect on his long-running campaign to break up the greatest country in the world. I hope that he will reflect on the pointlessness of what he is trying to do, and think instead about the priorities of the people of Scotland, which are all the issues that he thought were trivial: education, crime, and the burden of taxation that the SNP is unnecessarily placing on the people of Scotland.

Marco Longhi: A long time ago, when I trained as a pilot, I had the luxury of being able to fly around turbulent storms. I also had the ability to rely on a team who kept my aircraft airworthy. As the Prime Minister prepares his new flight plans, may I suggest that he resets his compass to true north and stops off in Dudley, where he will always be welcomed with open arms and sincere affection, and where he will be able to see his legacy?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that renewed invitation. I have spent many happy days with him in Dudley; let us hope that there are more to come.

Edward Davey: As the Prime Minister leaves office, I am sure that the whole House is looking forward to him completing his book on Shakespeare. We wait to read what he really thinks about tragic figures brought down by their vaulting ambition, or scheming politicians who conspire to bring down a tyrannical leader. The candidates now plotting to take his place all profess that they will bring a fresh start—a clean break from his Government—but does the Prime Minister not agree that a fresh start and a clean break would require a new mandate from the British people, and that before they strut and fret their hour upon the stage, there should be a general election?

Boris Johnson: Polonius—that’s who the right hon. Gentleman is; he needs more matter with less art. The only thing we need to know is that if there were to be a general election, the Liberal Democrats would rightly get thrashed, because that would be the moment when the public looked with horror at what the Liberal Democrats’ policies really are and all those rural voters would discover the massive green taxes that they would like to apply. The only risk is that there could be some kind of crackpot coalition between those guys on the Labour Benches, the Lib Dems and the Scottish nationalists to put that into effect. That is what we must prevent.

Felicity Buchan: My constituents feel very let down by the Mayor of London: he is consulting on cutting 18% of London’s buses; the Met is in special measures; he is looking to sell Notting Hill police station to the highest bidder; and he is looking to push through a completely unwanted overdevelopment of South Kensington tube station. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Londoners deserve way, way better?

Boris Johnson: London once had a Mayor who cut crime by 25%, cut the murder rate by 30% and built twice as many affordable homes as the current incumbent. What London needs is another Conservative Mayor.

Jamie Stone: May I add a personal note of thanks to Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is retiring? He is a highland gentleman and has been very helpful to me for a number of years, and I am extremely grateful to him.
The Prime Minister knows that harnessing wind power is crucial to the United Kingdom. He also knows that the highlands have faced great historic difficulties over the years, so I hope that he agrees that a green freeport in the Cromarty Firth is vital to harnessing wind energy; it has the full support of the industry and is vital to the prosperity of the region.

Boris Johnson: I can confirm that we are committed to funding two new green freeports in Scotland to the tune of £52 million. That would not be possible, of course, if the SNP got its way and we returned to the EU.

Jake Berry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work to tackle regional inequality in this country through his levelling-up agenda. As he rightly reflects with pride this summer on the work of both himself and his Government, will he  urge all candidates in the leadership election and all colleagues in the House further to drive forward the levelling-up agenda to tackle inequality wherever it is found in the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: I heartily agree with my right hon. Friend. It is not just inequality; it is inequality of opportunity, and that is what levelling up addresses.

Tony Lloyd: Very few people in the north of England believe that the levelling-up agenda has achieved anything at all. The Prime Minister has a few days left in office. Can he use that time to drive through the TransPennine rail system that we were promised would be finished in 2019 and will not be finished before 2030? It is a shambles, and he is responsible.

Boris Johnson: Actually, this Government are responsible for three new high-speed lines, including Northern Powerhouse Rail, which no previous Government have done.

Caroline Nokes: My right hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to our hard-working firefighters, who have been dealing with the fires over the past few days in this unprecedented weather. Will he take action to make sure that more fires can be prevented, by getting rid of disposable barbecues and Chinese sky lanterns?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for her suggestions. The key thing is for people to behave responsibly with the use of these things. It is clearly insane to take a disposable barbecue on to dry grass.

Philippa Whitford: Due to Scottish Government investment in affordable housing, the Scottish child payment and extended free school meals, Scotland has the lowest level of child poverty in the UK, in contrast to the north-east, where it has risen by 50% on the watch of this Government.
In contrast, the Prime Minister took over £1,000 from the poorest families—so much for levelling up—and those fighting to replace him have been falling over themselves to promise tax cuts to the wealthy. If the UK is meant to be a voluntary Union, does he not recognise that voters in Scotland have the right to a referendum, so that they can choose a fairer future?

Boris Johnson: Actually, we increased the living wage across the whole of the UK by £1,000, we made sure that people on universal credit got their tax bills cut by £1,000, and over the last couple of weeks we have cut national insurance contributions by an average of £330. It was because of the Union that we were able to support families up and down the country, in Scotland, with the furlough and other payments, to the tune of £408 billion.

Andrew Bowie: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his commitment to Scotland and the entire United Kingdom over his years in Downing Street? I also thank him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for improving and increasing the visibility and involvement  of the UK Government in Scotland over the past three years. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that whoever takes his job, and whatever comes next, the United Kingdom will always be stronger together than it ever would be apart?

Boris Johnson: That was brilliantly put; I could not have put it better myself.

Kate Osamor: The Windrush compensation scheme was launched in April 2019. In the time since, we have seen this Prime Minister come and go. Meanwhile, just one in four applicants has received compensation so far, and  sadly at least 28 have passed away without receiving compensation. Is it not about time for the Government to make the scheme independent of the Home Office, and finally provide justice to the victims before it is too late?

Boris Johnson: Actually, I think more people have got compensation. I renew my apologies to the Windrush generation for what they have suffered, but we have greatly increased the compensation available. We have paid out, I think, more than £51 million. We are working with voluntary groups to ensure that people get what they are entitled to. I may say that Labour has never apologised for its own part in the Windrush scandal.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for all the work he has done for Scunthorpe, but I give particular thanks to him for the work that he has done for steel. He has shown his understanding both of the challenges that steel faces and of its importance to this nation. He has kept every promise he has made to me on steel, and I thank him very much for his work on that. Does he agree with me that the future of steel is always safest under a Conservative Government?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for everything she has done to champion UK steel, a vital national industry.

Claire Hanna: This Prime Minister has been the very embodiment of the excess and the vice that the ministerial code was designed to protect against, and once trust is broken it is very hard to rebuild. The trust of the Good Friday agreement between the peoples and the Governments of these islands has been systematically destroyed over the last six years, and people across the island of Ireland—whether Unionist, nationalist or neither—have looked on in horror at the degradation of the rule of law, the deterioration of Anglo-Irish relationships and the bolstering of the far right.
Many of us will work to try to restore those relationships and ensure that the decent people of Britain and Ireland live entwined lives for many years to come. If the Prime Minister is capable of any self-reflection, does he have any regrets about his legacy of damaging our fragile shared society and all the people of Northern Ireland?

Boris Johnson: I completely disagree with that. The whole objective of the Northern Ireland (Protocol) Bill that we have passed is to support the balance and  symmetry of the Belfast/Good Friday arrangements. I was very pleased that the Bill advanced to the House of Lords with no amendments.

Crispin Blunt: In recalling the situation that the Prime Minister inherited in July 2019, of a Parliament with a majority determined to frustrate the result of the 2016 referendum, led by a Speaker who was just slightly partial—the seemingly impossible situation he found—does my right hon. Friend understand that he has the gratitude of my constituents, who can identify the wood from the trees, and of myself, for his leadership over the last three years?

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. There is a fair amount of wood on the Opposition Benches and I think that is why we will prevail at the next general election.

John McNally: Since 2014, the Tory party has had more Prime Ministers than we have had referendums. May I remind the PM of the Smith Commission report, which states:
“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country”?
Therefore, does the Prime Minister believe in democracy and will he respect the people of Scotland’s right to self-determination?

Boris Johnson: I think the people of Scotland do not, frankly, want to be talking about constitutional issues and another referendum when the issues before the country—the cost of living, the educational issues we discussed, drugs and crime—are far more pressing.

Mark Francois: The Prime Minister spoke earlier about the atrocities carried out by the IRA. For decades, many men and women had the courage to put on the Queen’s uniform and uphold law and order in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. One of the Prime Minister’s undoubted achievements is that he brought in the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, so that those people who served their country can finally sleep safely in their beds. Thank you for that, Prime Minister, if I may be  so presumptuous on their behalf. You kept your word  to them.

Boris Johnson: I thank my old friend for everything he did to campaign on that issue for so long. I am glad that this Government were indeed able to fulfil their promise not just to veterans, but to their families as well. I renew my thanks to the security services, who do so much to keep us safe, and to all those who put on the Queen’s uniform.

Ronnie Cowan: Prime Minister, the OECD forecasts zero growth in GDP for the UK economy in 2023; that would be the worst performance in the G7. Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and Finland are all wealthier than the UK. Why should Scotland not be afforded the same opportunity to seek prosperity through being a sovereign independent nation, standing as an equal among other equal nations?

Boris Johnson: The UK had the fastest growth in the G7 last year and we will return to the top of the table soon because we came out of covid fastest. We had 0.5% growth in May. Do not forget that the people of Scotland, like the people of the whole of the UK, are supported by the massive fiscal firepower of the UK Treasury, and that is a great advantage.

Cherilyn Mackrory: May I place on the record my thanks particularly to the firefighters of Cornwall, who were also extremely busy and courageous yesterday?
I thank the Prime Minister for his support and enthusiasm for Cornwall and the people of Cornwall over the last few years, and not least for the hosting of the G7 last year. I also thank him for the investment of £132 million from the shared prosperity fund, from which, with the national average at £17 per head, Cornwall receives £233 per head? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his enthusiasm for levelling up every part of the UK needs to carry on in the future?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Cornwall and we will continue our programme to support the greater south-west, whether through the A303 or broadband. Cornwall has a bright future with her as a representative.

Kirsten Oswald: While the Prime Minister has been on the randan at Chequers, people in Scotland are suffering because of the Tory cost of living crisis and we are paying a high price for his disastrous hard Brexit, imposed against the wishes of Scottish voters. It is time to end this democracy denial, Prime Minister: Scotland cannot afford to stay shackled to this crumbling Union and Tory Governments that we do not vote for. Does the Prime Minister not accept that Scotland is a democracy? He has no right to overrule the votes of people in Scotland and we will have the referendum we voted for.

Boris Johnson: This is the country that secured furlough and that delivered the vaccine across the whole of the UK, while the SNP gets on with overtaxing to the tune of £900 million—that is how much they are overtaxing in Scotland. And we had a referendum in 2014.

Martin Vickers: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the seafood processing industry to the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area. However, there is one cloud on the horizon: the recently imposed 35% tariff on white fish, which is causing industry leaders considerable concern even though they recognise the importance of maintaining sanctions on Russia. Will my right hon. Friend arrange meetings with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) with the appropriate Ministers, so we can discuss measures to mitigate the impact on the industry?

Boris Johnson: I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting as soon as possible with the relevant Minister, but it is very important that we encourage our great fish and chip shops in Grimsby, Cleethorpes and elsewhere to make sure they are not just using Russian fish for their fish and chips.

John Nicolson: As the Prime Minister limps off into the history books, his name up there in the pantheon of greats alongside the Duke of Portland and Spencer Perceval, can he update us on his defenestration honours list? How many of his cronies will he ennoble? Can we expect him to surpass Harold Wilson with a lavender list of dodgy donors, obsequious courtiers and “pinchers by nature”?

Boris Johnson: I am sure that everybody who has served this Government loyally and well deserves recognition of some kind, but as for the honours list, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will have to contain his excitement.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say that we wanted good temper and better, moderate language? I do not think we got it then—well, I know we did not.

Anna Firth: I thank the Prime Minister for his support for the new city of Southend. Our brilliant hospital turns 90 next Tuesday, but our heroic NHS staff are hampered by the size of the A&E department. Conservative-led capital funding of £8.4 million to expand the A&E department was promised five years ago but has not quite arrived. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the new Health Secretary to give us the best birthday present ever and, in the words of Cuba Gooding Jr, “Show me the money”?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the Prime Minister has got the message—also, I would like to hear your question as well.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for Essex and her hospital. I know the case is under review by the Department, but never forget it is only possible because of the money this Government are investing.

Geraint Davies: The Prime Minister will be remembered as a man of his word: “Pile ’em high”—200,000 dead, the most in Europe; “F- business”—This is the truth; they don’t like it, do they?
Let’s listen to the truth: 400,000 fewer people in jobs than before the pandemic if we include the self-employed, which the Prime Minister does not. So will he now keep faith with the 3.7 million people who have taken out student loans since this Conservative Government have been in power and who now face rising inflation in terms of rent, heating and eating, and who now must pay—[Interruption.] Listen to that rabble. [Interruption.] Listen to them.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sit down a minute. When I stand, it is easier if the hon. Member sits down—it helps the whole House. I want to get to the end of questions, and I know that hon. Member is coming to the end of his question.

Geraint Davies: There are 3.7 million people who face 7% interest rates from September, as well as the inflation on heating and eating and rent, when mortgages are at 2%. Will the Prime Minister help those people in need, or will he help the City people—his friends—who are making all this money out of the cost of living crisis?

Boris Johnson: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what students want. They want to have a system where they do not pay back more than they borrow, and that is what we are putting in. They also want to make sure that they have a jobs market that will take them on with high-wage, high-skill jobs. The difference between Labour Members and us is that we get people into high-wage, high-skill jobs. They are prepared to let them languish on the dole, and that is the difference.

Lindsay Hoyle: Final question: Sir Edward Leigh.

Edward Leigh: On behalf of the House, may I thank the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] On behalf of the House, may I thank the Prime Minister for his three-year record of service? On behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in the country, can I thank him for his insistence on rolling out the AstraZeneca jab, which has saved thousands of lives around the world? On behalf of the 17.4 million people who voted Brexit, may I thank him for restoring people’s faith in democracy? On behalf of northern towns, may I thank him for his commitment to levelling up? And most of all, on behalf of the people of Ukraine, may I thank him for holding high the torch of freedom and ensuring that that country is not a vassal state? For true grit and determination, keep going and thank you.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I want to use the last few seconds to give some words of advice to my successor, whoever he or she may be.
No. 1: stay close to the Americans; stick up for  the Ukrainians; stick up for freedom and democracy everywhere. Cut taxes and deregulate wherever you can to make this the greatest place to live and invest, which it is. I love the Treasury, but remember that if we had always listened to the Treasury, we would not have built the M25 or the channel tunnel. Focus on the road ahead, but always remember to check the rear-view mirror. And remember, above all, it is not Twitter that counts; it is the people that sent us here.
And yes, the last few years have been the greatest privilege of my life. It is true that I helped to get the biggest Tory majority for 40 years and a huge realignment in UK politics. We have transformed our democracy and restored our national independence, as my right hon. Friend says. We have helped—I have helped—to get this country through a pandemic and helped save another country from barbarism. Frankly, that is enough to be going on with. Mission largely accomplished—for now.
I want to thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank all the wonderful staff of the House of Commons. I want to thank all my friends and colleagues. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I want to thank everybody here. And hasta la vista, baby. [Applause.]

Heatwave Response

Kit Malthouse: I would like to make a statement on this week’s heatwave. Coningsby in Lincolnshire broke records yesterday when it registered a provisional reading of 40.3°C. According to the Met Office, no fewer than 34 locations around the United Kingdom exceeded the country’s previous highest temperature of 37.8°C, which was set in 2019.
We have seen a collective national endeavour to prepare for and manage the effects of the heat, from town hall to Whitehall and across various industries, to keep people safe and infrastructure functioning. From water companies and rail engineers to public servants across the land, everyone has pulled together, with members of the public responding in a responsible way that took the pressure off vital public services.
Our national resolve has been exemplified by our fire and rescue services, for many of which yesterday was the busiest day since world war two. They were undoubtedly stretched, but coped magnificently. The systems in place to make sure that the fire services can operate nationally as well as locally worked well. In tinderbox conditions, they have dealt with dozens of wildfires around the country over the past 24 hours. Fifteen fire and rescue services declared major incidents and handled emergency calls the length and breadth of the country.
Sadly, at least 41 properties have been destroyed in London, 14 in Norfolk, five in Lincolnshire and smaller numbers elsewhere. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and, I am sure, the whole House, I would like to pass on our sincere condolences to those who have lost their homes or business premises. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is working closely with local authorities to provide support to them.
Throughout recent days, the Prime Minister has monitored our work and has been specifically briefed on a number of occasions; we briefed him again this morning. The Prime Minister was briefed during the wildfires by Mark Hardingham—the chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council—and the civil contingencies secretariat. He has passed on his thanks to all the brave firefighters who have sought to control the flames in such debilitating conditions. I would also like to pay my tribute to the fire control staff, officers and support teams for their essential work and to the other agencies that have made such tremendous efforts in recent days: the NHS, our emergency call handlers, the police and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, among many others.
Hon. Members will be relieved to know that some pressure on these services will now ease as the fiercest heat has subsided. Many incidents are now being scaled back. Thunderstorms are likely this afternoon, but for much of the country, more clement, dry conditions are the pattern for the coming days. The Met Office, however, stresses that the summer is likely to bring further hot weather and wildfire risk remains elevated. That is why we are treating this heatwave as an exacting test of our national resilience and contingency planning. As always, there is no room for complacency.
We have seen over the past few days what we can achieve when we prepare properly and then work closely together. Owing to the technical expertise of the weather  forecasters who predicted with admirable precision the peak of the heatwave and how high the temperatures would be, the Government were able to launch an advance campaign of comprehensive public advice. Our early data shows how, well before the heatwave arrived, people were taking on board that advice from the UK Health Security Agency, the NHS, the chief and deputy chief medical officer, emergency services and key agencies on the ground.
Because of our established local networks and colleagues in the devolved Administrations, we had people spread across the UK ready to step in when it mattered. I am particularly grateful for the co-operation and support that we received from the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. We all need to manage these events together.
I would like to give some examples of how people taking the right action helped to mitigate the effects of the extreme weather, starting with the heeding of advice. Fully five times as many people accessed NHS England internet pages on how to manage the symptoms of heat exhaustion in the critical week beginning 11 July. We had feared that our vital 999 call services would come under untold pressure, yet as the mercury climbed inexorably on 18 July, fewer 999 calls but more 111 calls were made than the week before. That suggests that the public had heeded the advice to avoid 999 except in emergencies.
With travel, once again people were playing for the team. The public stayed at home to avoid the heat, not venturing far. The data bears that out: on Monday, footfall at major London stations was at approximately 35% of normal post-pandemic levels. Network Rail reports that passenger train numbers yesterday were approximately 40% down on the previous week. We did not forget those who cannot easily leave their homes; we asked people to look out for the elderly and for vulnerable family members and neighbours.
Tragically, 13 people are believed to have lost their lives after getting into difficulty in rivers, reservoirs and lakes while swimming in recent days; seven of them, sadly, were teenage boys. I would like to pass on our sincere condolences and those of the whole House to the families of the victims for their terrible loss.
Of course, we have still to work through the longer-term consequences of the heatwave. The true picture will not come until all incidents are analysed, all emergency teams are debriefed and all incident logs and data are reconciled. A great deal of data has yet to come in from colleagues in the devolved Administrations and from local authorities and agencies around the country. We recognise that we are likely to experience more of these incidents, and that we should not underestimate their speed, scope and severity. Britain may be unaccustomed to such high temperatures, but the UK, along with our European neighbours, must learn to live with extreme events such as these.
The Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to reach net zero, but the impacts of climate change are with us now. That is why we have a national adaptation programme under the leadership of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As we have seen in recent days, we will continue to face acute events driven by climate change. It is the responsibility of Cabinet Office Ministers to co-ordinate work across Government when those events take place.
The Government will continue to build our collective resilience. To that end, the national resilience strategy, about which I was asked on Monday, will be launched at the earliest possible opportunity by the incoming Administration. In the meantime, I will continue to co-ordinate the work of teams across Government in building resilience to make sure that the country is ready to meet the challenges of the autumn, the winter and beyond. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Angela Rayner: The events of the last few days have been incredibly traumatic for communities across Britain. Individuals and families have had their homes destroyed and, as the Minister said, lives have been lost. As the mother of teenagers, I reiterate that they must not swim in our rivers—it is too dangerous.
Farmers and businesses have seen their livelihoods go up in smoke. We saw horrifying images of the A2 on fire yesterday. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the incredible bravery of our fire services and those whose job it is to head straight into danger as the rest of us escape it. Sadly, four firefighters have been hospitalised in South Yorkshire and over a dozen have been injured in London. I know that the whole House will give them our gratitude and wish them well, but for too long our public servants have been underappreciated and undervalued by this Government. The Minister mentioned our fire services; over the last 10 years, the funding and staffing of fire and rescue services has been cut, and response times have gone up by 8%. Yesterday, no mutual aid was available to services facing literal firestorms.
Mr Speaker, this statement is far too late. The impact of this heatwave was completely predictable, so why the delay in coming to this House? It has literally taken the country going up in flames for the Minister to turn his focus to this emergency. Climate change will cause more and more national emergencies like this, from heatwaves to fires, floods and pandemics, but as we have seen over the past week, the leadership contenders are doing their hardest to outbid each other on how they would cut action on climate change. They will leave us vulnerable to more freak natural disasters.
The caretaker Minister says that it is his job to chair Cobra meetings, but it should be the job of the Prime Minister to lead. Yesterday, the remaining Cabinet gave the Prime Minister the complete volumes of Sir Winston Churchill as a leaving gift—but he is no Churchill. He has been missing in action. Can the Minister tell us where the Prime Minister was as the country burned? Where was he when Cobra was called last weekend? Has he attended any talks with Ministers or senior officials in the days since? Is the truth not that the Prime Minister and his entire Government have gone missing while Britain burns?
We might have cooler temperatures today, but another heatwave is inevitable as our climate heats up. Britain cannot continue to be so unprepared. The Minister tells people to drink water and wear a hat. It is just not good  enough. We need a long-term emergency resilience plan for the future, so can the Minister answer these questions? Where is the plan for the delivery of essential services? How will people be kept safe at work, on transport, in hospitals and in care homes? Where is the guidance for safe indoor working temperatures?
The Minister now says that the Government’s national resilience plan will be published in due course, by the new Administration. It is already 10 months overdue. Why should the British people be forced to wait for a whole year? It is the primary duty of any Government to keep the public safe, and Britain deserves much better than this. Labour already has a resilience plan for the long term. We would implement a Department-wide approach and appoint a Minister for Resilience. We would give local government the resources that it needs to plan and prepare for emergencies. Local government has been on the frontline, and I pay tribute to its response to this crisis—and to what it did during the pandemic—but its resilience has been eroded by 12 years of cuts and austerity at the hands of this Government.
Finally, Labour would empower businesses and civil society organisations to strengthen our response. Homes have been destroyed, our brave firefighters have been hospitalised, and lives have been ruined and lost. Enough is enough. If the Minister is not willing to take the action that is needed, we on this side of the House are.

Kit Malthouse: What a shame that—notwithstanding the loss of some homes and some tragic deaths in water-related incidents—the right hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to recognise that by and large the system worked, and that, owing to our planning and the resilience that we built into all the public services and, indeed, public servants whom she lauded, the country got through this particular extreme weather event in pretty good shape. We obviously recognise that there were some unfortunate incidents—as I said, a number of homes were set on fire—but the fact that we kept the damage to a minimum and the vast majority of the population got through this difficulty well was not recognised by the right hon. Lady at all, and I think that that is a real shame.
The right hon. Lady claimed that no mutual aid was available. That is not correct. One fire and rescue service, Norfolk, called for national mutual aid, and mutual aid was provided from other parts of the country. The system that we have for flexing the use of the fire service throughout the country worked extremely well, as the chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council was able to confirm to the Prime Minister last night and, indeed, this morning.
The right hon. Lady seemed to claim that this was the first time I had turned up in the House to discuss this issue. It is not; it is the second time I have done so, and we have been working on this since the weather forecasters notified us that an extreme weather event was likely to occur. It is, however, the first time the right hon. Lady has turned up in the House. [Interruption.] You were doing a radio interview.

Angela Rayner: I was in my office.

Kit Malthouse: Being in your office is not being on the Front Bench. “Present but not involved” is, I believe, the claim from the Labour party. Before the right hon.  Lady starts flinging stones and claiming that others are not doing their job, perhaps she should polish the glass in her house.
As for the involvement of the Prime Minister, he has been kept in touch with our work throughout, either through personal briefings from me or, last night and this morning, through briefings from the chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. As the right hon. Lady will, I am afraid, never know—because, I hope, she will never be in the Government—No. 10 and the Cabinet Office work together very closely when emergencies such as this arise and we need to establish plans and specific co-ordination work to ensure that we all understand what the picture is.
As I have said, the resilience plan is in progress and will be launched as soon as we have a new Administration in No. 10, but the right hon. Lady should not mistake the question of the publication of a national resilience plan for our not having any plans at all. As we saw in all manner of elements of the function of our country, the plans that we had in place worked well, the capacity that we stood up flexed, often brilliantly, to deal with an ever-changing situation, and, as I have said, most of the country got through it in good shape.
As for the appointment of a Minister for Resilience, I am afraid that we already have one: it is me. The job of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is to look after the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, whose purpose is to deal specifically with issues of resilience and ensure that the system works, as it did—largely—yesterday.

James Wild: Yesterday, wildfires in my constituency destroyed properties in Brancaster Staithe and also destroyed habitats and wildlife on the famous Wild Ken Hill estate, which is well known for hosting the BBC’s “Springwatch”. Let me put on record my constituents’ immense thanks to Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service and the other emergency services, as well as all those in the local community who helped to tackle those blazes in such awful circumstances: they will recover and rebuild those community areas. May I also ask the Minister to reinforce our commitment to achieving net zero so that we are better protected from climate change?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is right: Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service was severely tested yesterday. As I said earlier, it received mutual aid—from, I believe, as far afield as Merseyside—to help it in that battle, and I understand that those services will remain in situ to ensure that Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service can get back on its feet and deal with any event that may arise over the next few days. My hon. Friend is also right to suggest that, while we are very focused on the continuing elevated risk of wildfires, the long-term work enabling us not only to make our own contribution to the battle against climate change but to lead the world and challenge some of its biggest polluters to change their habits and their uses of fuel is critical, and I know that in Parliaments to come he will be at the forefront of that fight.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
I thank the Minister for prior sight of this statement.
Let me begin by paying tribute to those in all the emergency services who, once again, have gone above and beyond to help their fellow citizens in a time of crisis. Let me also extend our sympathy to the people whose homes and businesses have been destroyed in the fires that raged across parts of England.
We may not have known anything like this before, with record temperatures being set in three of the four nations of the UK and the symbolic 40°C barrier being broken in England, but, sadly, I predict that this—or something like it—is here to stay. We are all going to have to live with it, and Governments are going to have to prepare for it in the future. Climate scientists have been warning us for decades that this day was coming, and it would be disingenuous in the extreme for anyone to claim that it was a one-off freak event or dare to compare it with the summer of 1976. This is the climate emergency. This is exactly what we were told would happen if we did not change our ways. This is what COP26 was all about, and that is why those who are still part of the Tory leadership race cannot, and must not, renege on the commitment to achieving net zero in return for securing votes from the party’s base.
Can the Minister tell me where is the plan to increase and bolster resilience so that the Government’s response to the guaranteed future heatwaves is more co-ordinated and strategic than what we have witnessed on this occasion? Given the melting roads, buckling rail tracks and dissolving runways, what plans are being considered to make our critical infrastructure more resilient to this type of heat? Finally, does the Minister agree with me—and, I suspect, the vast majority of the country—that the optics of the Prime Minister’s decision to party while parts of the UK literally burned showed a complete lack of self-awareness and a complete dereliction of duty?

Kit Malthouse: First, let me join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating our firefighters. It is a remarkable form of public service to run towards an inferno in all circumstances, and particularly in the case of wildfires, which I know can be very challenging for firefighters to address, not least because they often cover a much wider area than, say, house fires. It was, I understand, particularly difficult yesterday because the ambient temperature was so high: firefighters have to wear very heavy clothing and equipment, so it was particularly debilitating for them physically.
As for building resilience into our infrastructure, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have a national adaptation plan. As we go through periods like this particular heatwave, we shall need to learn the lessons and adjust that plan accordingly. For example, over the last 24 hours there has been much debate about the impact on the rail system—a wide impact, obviously—and the tolerances to which we build our railways. We need to learn from our European partners in this regard. While it may be possible to stress a railway to enable it to deal with high temperatures, that stressing may not accommodate very low temperatures—in Scotland, for instance—and uniformity across the country is critical.
The hon. Gentleman alluded to attendance at Cobra. Let me gently point out to him that the First Minister of Scotland did not attend either. Happily, the Deputy First Minister and other Cabinet Members joined us, and they were able to function perfectly well in Cobra, as I am sure the First Minister would have done.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I associate myself with the comments made by all the hon. Members who have paid tribute to the emergency services who fearlessly tackled the challenges, particularly the fire at Wennington, which generated a smoke cloud that spread across the whole of east London and Thurrock. That showed just how challenging it was. I would particularly like to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the River Thames. He mentioned drowning incidents, and for many years it has been challenging for the Port of London Authority to encourage local authorities to do their bit on drowning prevention by raising awareness of just how dangerous the River Thames is as a waterway and also by ensuring that there is sufficient safety equipment. Will he take this opportunity to remind local authorities to work collaboratively with the PLA to address that?

Kit Malthouse: One of the lessons for all of us—not least in Scotland where the school term has finished—is the need to underline the dangers inherent in bodies of water to people who live by them or want to use them. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Thames might look like an innocent retreat from the heat, but beneath the waves there are strong currents and we often see people get into difficulty therein. She raises a good point about the PLA and I will take that away and see what more we can do to co-ordinate the work of the PLA and the riparian authorities.

Ian Lavery: The men and women of the fire and rescue services were quite simply awe-inspiring yesterday, as they regularly are, but they cannot continue to work miracles. The impact of 12 years of cuts and austerity on the fire and rescue services has been an absolute disaster. They quite simply need much more critical investment if we are to tackle climate change correctly. The morale within the fire and rescue services is at an all-time low, but this week the Government offered their members a paltry 2% pay increase. It is absolutely outrageous to offer 2% to the men and women who, as the Minister says, were running towards the inferno yesterday. It is time we stopped clapping the great members of our fire and rescue services and started paying them.

Kit Malthouse: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the pay of firefighters is not within the control of the Government. It is set by a body that involves both employees and employers, many of which are Labour-controlled local authorities. He may have strong views about the percentage that has been offered to the firefighters, but this is a challenge that he has to put down to some of his own colleagues, not to the Government. As he knows, the fire service has been remarkably successful over the last decade or so—or longer—in driving down the absolute number of fires with which it has to deal. Much of that is about its prevention work, which has been brilliant, but it is also about technology changes, not least in furniture composition. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is also aware that there is a White Paper on fire reform out at the moment, and I hope that he will make a useful contribution to it.

Neil Hudson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank him and those in his Department and across Government who are working on planning and resilience  in these unprecedented weather times. I also thank our emergency services, people in the public services and in the NHS on the frontline, people in fire and rescue, the police, our local authorities and our transport networks and people at large: our community volunteers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those people in Cumbria and right across the UK for all that they have done, and continue to do, to keep people safe?

Kit Malthouse: That is a very welcome question from my hon. Friend, and I am more than happy to join him in thanking all those people who played on the team to get us through in such good shape. There were obviously some tragedies, but the fact that we were able to minimise the number was a tribute to the work of all the organisations he has mentioned.
While I am answering, I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my staff in the civil contingency secretariat who have worked round the clock over the last few days, in particular working closely with the Met Office, as we sought to predict and to prepare the country, co-ordinating across Whitehall and all the other agencies. It has been a really remarkable effort and, notwithstanding the terrible tragedies that we have seen, the fact that we got through in good shape was down to all of their work.

Diana R. Johnson: I think that this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role. We shall miss scrutinising him on the Home Affairs Committee. Can I also add my thanks to the emergency services for everything they did yesterday to save property and lives? As the Minister has said, there is a White Paper out about the fire and rescue services, and its consultation has a deadline of 26 July, which I think is Sunday. In the light of the fact that the Home Affairs Committee will be looking at this in the autumn, I wonder whether it would be sensible to extend that deadline. The events of this week show that there is clear evidence of climate change-driven volatility, which will have serious implications for the fire and rescue services. This might be a good time to reflect on that before submitting to the consultation, so if the deadline could be extended, that would be helpful.

Kit Malthouse: I have certainly enjoyed being constructively challenged by the right hon. Lady during my three years in the policing job. I hope I made a small difference to the safety of the public during those years, but obviously that will be for others to judge. The timing of the White Paper is not within my remit, but I undertake with her to raise it with the Minister concerned and make the point that she has made.

Sammy Wilson: I also congratulate the emergency services on their excellent work, but is it not a fact that while we have been pursuing a policy of decarbonisation and spending huge amounts of money on it—£50 billion to the energy industry in the last 20 years, with another £50 billion estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the next three years—it is having little effect on our own climate or the world’s? We can wave our puny fists at the forces of nature, but the fact of the matter is that it is not working. Instead of spending money on expensive attempts to decarbonise, would it not be far better to spend that money on  adapting to the inevitable changes in our climate, to make people safe when we have extreme flooding or extreme heat?

Kit Malthouse: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we should do both. We should adapt, and we have a national adaptation strategy, but I urge him to be more optimistic about the impact that human ingenuity can have on solving the world’s problems. We have seen throughout our history that the invention of technology in this country, once established and proven to work, often accelerates progress in other parts of the world, whether it was with the invention of the spinning jenny and the loom or the silicon chip and the smartphone. The iPhone was invented less than 15 years ago, and just over a decade later pretty much the whole world has one. These things often start slowly, but once they accelerate they make a huge impact.

Barry Sheerman: Bobby Seale wrote a campaigning book called “Seize the Time”. Can I ask the Minister to seize this time and this opportunity? Many of us have been campaigning on climate change and global warming for a long time. A really pivotal moment was when I read and reviewed Professor Steve Jones’s book “Here Comes the Sun” about four years ago. We are all campaigners in this place, and the truth is that we know when a particular incident is suddenly going to change the public mood and the public mind in terms of urgency, priority and the dramatic need for action. Will the right hon. Gentleman please say to his Ministers, to future Ministers and to the future Prime Minister that this is the time to capture the imagination and really get the public behind this?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Gentleman is correct that incidents such as these often serve to underline the importance of our collective mission on climate change. As somebody who has campaigned and been an enthusiast for the hydrogen economy for over 20 years now, I am always keen to welcome more people to the cause, but as we have seen in the debate elsewhere over the last couple of weeks, we have to take care that as we seek to progress and fight climate change, we bring the population with us. We need to illustrate to them that the work we are doing will not only make their lives better but, critically, make their children’s lives better, rather than characterising it as purely a cost today.

Christine Jardine: I am interested in what the Minister says about taking the public with us. Surely, following the past few days, the public are well aware of the impact of climate change and see the heatwave here in the United Kingdom and the five heatwaves across Europe as a consequence of inaction, or of being too slow to react to climate change. I am concerned about the contradiction between what he has said today and what we hear from his party’s leadership candidates about climate change and the action to combat it. Can he assure us that the Government are committed to continuing the fight to reach net zero as quickly as possible?

Kit Malthouse: The battle against climate change has been a central part of Conservative policy since the heady days of David Cameron, who campaigned on the slogan “Vote blue, go green.”

Olivia Blake: An illegal net zero strategy, no national resilience strategy, 15 areas declaring major incidents, 11,500 firefighters cut since 2010 and a 2% pay offer on the table. Does the frontline of the climate emergency not deserve better?

Kit Malthouse: As I said earlier, the hon. Lady needs to pose that question to her colleagues in local government. As she knows perfectly well, and as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines)—she is here on the Front Bench—knows perfectly well, pay awards for firefighters are not within the Government’s control and are settled by a body that includes both employers and employees.

Dan Jarvis: I pay tribute to South Yorkshire fire and rescue service, which did amazing work yesterday in very difficult conditions to keep communities safe in my part of the world. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is conducting a timely inquiry into critical national infrastructure and climate adaptation. What plans does he have to follow suit?

Kit Malthouse: As we deal with these incidents, both in the last few days and over a summer in which the forecasters tell us the risk remains elevated, we will learn exactly the lessons that the hon. Gentleman is asking us to learn, and obviously we will review the Joint Committee’s report. He will know that we pay constant attention to the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. As the climate changes, so should we.

Rachael Maskell: I, too, commend the work of NHS staff and North Yorkshire fire and rescue service, which is currently facing cuts. I urge that those cuts do not go ahead.
Having dealt with a lot of flooding, I know what a resilience plan looks like, and yesterday there just was not a resilience plan. There were no checks on the most vulnerable people in our community, and no rest rooms or cool spaces for people who do not have such facilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster go back and instruct all resilience areas to put in place a proper integrated resilience plan?

Kit Malthouse: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is in close touch with the resilience forums and, indeed, attended the meeting of chairs earlier this week. These are very good challenges and questions for the hon. Lady’s local resilience forum, and I would be happy to arrange for her to meet the lead body on the resilience forum in York so she can reassure herself that it has the right plans in place.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Minister for his statement. Yesterday was the busiest day for London firefighters since the second world war, and I thank firefighters across the UK for keeping us all safe.
I also express my deepest condolences to the families of those who have died in recent days after getting into difficulty in the water. What support are Ministers giving to organisations such as the Royal National  Lifeboat Institution and campaigns such as Respect the Water to raise awareness of the dangers of open water swimming on hot days?

Kit Malthouse: I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to the fire services, and I know that all of us, particularly the fire Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, have been watching in awe as the firefighters did their job over the past 48 hours.
There has been a strong communication campaign, in co-ordination with the devolved Administrations, not least in Scotland where the schools are not open at the moment, to illustrate the dangers of young people specifically, but all of us generally, diving or jumping into water about which we know very little. One of the lessons that has come out of the last couple of days is on our need for more targeted communication. As we review what has happened over the last three or four days, we will make sure this is one of the key things we examine.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to hear the Minister, and I thank him for his statement. I also thank all the fire and rescue services for their endeavours and for the vital work they do across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Have there been any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about using our armed forces personnel to police our lakes and rivers as the heatwave pushes people to swim in unsafe areas? As the Minister said, 13 people are believed to have lost their lives, and I add my condolences to all the families who are grieving with an empty chair in their house. I think of them all.
Does the Minister believe the Government can increase public safety to prevent further tragic loss of life such as we have seen over the last few days?

Kit Malthouse: In contemplating any civil contingency situation, we examine whether we have the capacity needed to deal with it and, therefore, whether we need to seek it elsewhere. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember the worst pictures we saw during the extensive wildfires on Saddleworth moor and Winter hill in the north of England in 2018, when the armed forces were deployed to assist the emergency services. That was not deemed appropriate this time. In fact, our judgment that the emergency services would cope proved to be correct.
On the hon. Gentleman’s challenge on whether we can do more to educate people and to target bodies of water that might prove dangerous, and as I said to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), that is definitely something we will need to take away and consider. Obviously, we urge parents to take responsibility by understanding where their children are and by warning them about the dangers, as we did through our health messaging on looking after elderly neighbours. We all have to work together to keep our young people safe. We will examine what more we can do as we learn the lessons from this incident.

Women’s Health Strategy for England

Steve Barclay: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the women’s health strategy for England.
I know that many hon. and right hon. Members will agree that, for too long, women’s health has been hampered by fragmented services and women being ignored when they raise concerns about their pain. On too many occasions, we have heard of failures in patient safety because women who raised concerns were not heard, as with the Ockenden review into the tragic failings in maternity care and the independent inquiry into the convicted surgeon Ian Paterson. I also remember the outstanding work of my constituent Kath Sansom and her Sling the Mesh campaign where, once again, the response was too slow when women raised issues with their care.
We are embarking on an important mission to improve how the health and care system listens to women’s voices and to boost health outcomes for women and girls, from adolescence all the way through to later life. This is not only important for women and girls; it is important for everyone. This work is already well under way.
Last month we announced the appointment of Professor Dame Lesley Regan, one of the country’s foremost experts in women’s health, as the first ever women’s health ambassador for England. On top of this, we are investing an extra £127 million in the NHS maternity workforce and neonatal care over the next year, and we are creating a network of family hubs in local authorities in England.
Today we are announcing the next step. We are publishing the first ever women’s health strategy for England, which sets out a wide range of commitments to improve the health of women and girls everywhere. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the almost 100,000 women who took the time to share their stories with us, as painful as it may have been. Your voices have been heard and were vital in shaping this strategy.
I will now set out the key components of the strategy. First, we are putting in place a range of measures to ensure that women are better listened to in the NHS. Indeed, 84% of respondents to our call for evidence recounted instances where they were not listened to by healthcare professionals. We need to do more to tackle the disappointment and disillusionment that many women feel. We are working with NHS England to embed shared decision making where patients are given greater involvement in decisions relating to their care, including when it comes to women’s health.
Secondly, we want to see better access to services for all women and girls. Women and girls have told us that the fragmented commissioning and delivery of health services can impact their ability to access them. That means they have to make multiple appointments to get the care they need, adding to the NHS backlog. There are better ways to deliver women’s health through centres of excellence in the form of women’s health hubs, designed specifically to holistically assess women’s health issues and where specialist practitioners can be more attuned to concerns being raised. We are encouraging  the expansion of those hubs, and indeed I visited Homerton University Hospital this morning to see the benefits these local one-stop clinics bring, enabling women to have all their health needs met in one place.
Thirdly, it is essential that we address the lack of research into women’s health conditions and improve the representation of women’s data in all types of research. Currently, not enough is known about conditions that only affect women, as well as about how conditions that affect both men and women impact them in different ways. The strategy sets out how we will tackle the women’s health data gap to make sure that health data is broken down by sex by default.
Fourthly, we will provide better information and education on issues relating to women’s health. Our call for evidence showed that fewer than one in 10 respondents feels they have enough information about conditions in areas such as the menopause and that many people wanted trusted and accessible information about women’s health. The NHS website is currently a trusted source of health information for many people, and we will transform the women’s health content to improve its existing pages and add new pages on conditions that are not currently there. But we know that the NHS will not be everyone’s first port of call for health information, so we will expand our partnerships, such as the one between YouTube and NHS Digital, who are working together to make sure that credible, clinically safe information appears prominently for UK audiences. It is also important that medical professionals have the best possible understanding of women’s health, and I am pleased that the General Medical Council will be introducing specific assessments on women’s health for medical students, including on the menopause and on gynaecology.
Fifthly, our strategy sets out how we will support women at work. In the call for evidence, only one in three respondents felt comfortable talking about health issues with their workplace, and we also know that one in four women has considered leaving their job as a result of the menopause. So we will be focusing our health and wellbeing fund over the next three years on projects to support women’s wellbeing in the workplace, and we will be encouraging businesses across the country to take up best practice such as the menopause workforce pledge, which was recently signed by the NHS and the civil service.
Sixthly, we will place an intense focus on the disparities in women’s health. We know that although women in the UK on average live longer than men, they spend a significantly greater proportion of their lives in ill health and disability than men. Even among women there are marked disparities and our strategy shows our plans to give targeted support to the groups who face barriers accessing the care they need, for example, disabled women and women experiencing homelessness. It also shows how we are putting an extra £10 million of funding towards 25 new mobile breast screening units that will target areas and communities with the greatest challenges on uptake and coverage.
Finally, as well as these cross-cutting priorities, the responses to our call for evidence also highlighted a number of specific areas where targeted action is needed. Those include fertility care, where we will be removing barriers that restrict access that are not health-based but based, for example, on whether someone has had a child from a previous relationship, and making access  to fertility services much more transparent. Another of our priority areas is improving care for women and their partners who experience the tragedy of pregnancy loss. At the moment, although parents whose babies are stillborn must legally register the stillbirth, if a pregnancy ends before 24 weeks’ gestation there is no formal process for parents to legally register their baby, which I know can be distressing for many bereaved parents. So we will be accepting the interim update of the independent pregnancy loss review and introducing a voluntary scheme to allow parents who have experienced a loss before 24 weeks of pregnancy to record and receive a certificate to provide recognition of their tragic loss.
This is a significant programme of work but we cannot achieve the scale of change we need through central Government alone. We must work across all areas of health and care. We will need the NHS and local authority commissioners to expand the use of women’s health hubs; the medical schools, regulators and Royal Colleges to help us improve education and training for healthcare professionals; the National Institute for Health and Care Research to help make breakthroughs that will drive our future work; and many others to play their part. I would like to finish by thanking everyone involved in the development of this important strategy, including the Minister of State, Department for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is on the Front Bench with me today, for the determination she has shown in taking this strategy forward. I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), the latter of whom is in his place, for their commitment to this important issue, even during the pressures of the pandemic. This is a landmark strategy, which lays the foundations for change and helps us to tackle the injustices that have persisted for too long. I commend this statement to the House.

Wes Streeting: Let me begin by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and adding my thanks to the Minister of State, to his predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who is sat opposite, and to officials in the Department for the work they have done. I am genuinely glad that this work is out of the door when so much else has been in hiatus because of the wider political change afoot in the Government. I join the Secretary of State in recognising the campaigning efforts of his constituent Kath Sansom, as well as the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness of the menopause and has been a driving force for change on behalf of women everywhere.
For too long, women's health has been an afterthought, and the voices of women have been at best ignored and at worst silenced. Four out of five women who responded to the Government’s survey could remember a time where they did not feel listened to by a healthcare professional, and that has simply got to change. In recent years, we have seen a string of healthcare scandals primarily affecting women: nearly 2,000 reported cases of avoidable harm and death in maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford; more than 1,000 women operated  on unnecessarily by the rogue breast surgeon Ian Paterson; thousands given faulty PIP— Poly Implant Prothèse—breast implants; and many left with traumatic complications after vaginal mesh surgery. Meanwhile, every woman who needs to use the NHS today faces record high waiting times. The NHS is losing midwives faster than it can recruit them. Gynaecology waiting lists have grown faster than those for any other medical specialty. The number of women having cervical screening is falling. And black women are 40% more likely to experience a miscarriage than white women. That is the cost for women of 12 years of Conservatives mismanagement, so I want to address each part of the strategy in turn.
The strategy promises new research, which is of course important. Studies suggest that gender biases in clinical trials are contributing to worse health outcomes for women. There is evidence that the impact of women-specific health conditions such as heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis, pregnancy-related issues and the menopause is overlooked. So of course what the Secretary of State has said today about improving data is so important, but will he also set out how exactly the Government intend to make use of this new data to improve outcomes for women?
Improving the education and training of health professionals is essential, because when we do not do that, there are consequences. Almost one in 10 women has to see their GP 10 times before they get proper help and advice about the menopause, and half of medical schools do not teach doctors about the menopause, even though it affects every woman. I challenge the Secretary of State to go further than the proposal he outlined to train incoming medical students and incoming doctors. What plans do the Government have for clinicians who are already practising? We need to upskill the existing workforce, not just the incoming workforce. However, let us be clear: informing clinicians is no good if we do not also improve access to hormone replacement therapy, so where is the action in the strategy to end the postcode lottery for treatment?
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, and the NHS offers regular breast cancer screening to women aged between 50 and 70. That can prevent avoidable deaths by identifying cancer early, when it is more treatable and survival is more likely. Yet, fewer women in the most deprived areas than in the most affluent areas receive regular breast screening. Even before the pandemic too many women with suspected breast cancer were waiting more than the recommended two weeks to see a specialist. How will the programme announced today make a difference to outcomes for patients if, once diagnosed, they just end up on a waiting list that is far too long and they cannot access the treatment they need?
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about removing barriers to in vitro fertilisation for women in same-sex couples. For far too long they have faced unnecessary obstacles to accessing IVF, for no other reason than that they love another woman. It is high time that we put that right.
I also want to mention endometriosis. Tens of thousands of women provided testimony to the Government about the issues they face with diagnosis and treatment. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that  every woman who is treated for this disease will have equal access to specialist services from day one? Will he make sure that they do not have to fight to get the diagnosis in the first place?
On polycystic ovary syndrome, what will the Secretary of State do to make sure that we equalise access to a range of treatments, not least for women for whom the pill is simply inappropriate? We must make sure we end the division between those who receive a prescription on the NHS and those who go private, receiving better treatment.
I also want to raise some points about what has not been mentioned today. In addition to the appalling figures on black maternity deaths, a quarter of black women surveyed by Five X More felt that they received a poor or very poor standard of care during pregnancy, labour and post-natal care. Women who live in deprived areas are more likely to suffer a stillbirth than their richer counterparts. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, has pledged a new race equality Act to tackle the structural inequalities in our society, including in healthcare. However, the Government are more interested in stoking culture wars than in acknowledging that these inequalities even exist. Surely that has to change when there is a new leadership of the Conservative party.
In conclusion, the reality that faces women in this country is this: breast cancer waiting times are through the floor, half a million women are waiting for gynaecology treatment, black women are four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth, and too many women still cannot get HRT when they need it. This strategy simply will not solve the depth of the crisis in women’s healthcare after 12 years of Conservative mismanagement. Every day this Conservative Government remain in office is another day when women will have to wait far too long for the care they desperately need.

Eleanor Laing: I call Sajid Javid.

Steve Barclay: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Oh, I beg your pardon! It is probably a good idea if I allow the Secretary of State to answer the shadow Secretary of State. I am too many steps ahead.

Steve Barclay: I do not want those on the Opposition Front Bench thinking that their points have not been addressed.
I think there is much common ground on both sides of the House on the importance of this strategy and the need for a culture and system change in the NHS to address many of the concerns raised in past debates in the House on issues such as mesh, Paterson and Ockenden. I also think there are a lot of areas where colleagues on both sides of the House will work together to encourage commissioners in our constituencies to reshape services in a way that better reflects the needs set out in this strategy.
The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is right to highlight the fact that many respondents felt they had not been heard in the past. That is why we have taken the first step of appointing a women’s health ambassador—Professor Dame Lesley Regan, who is an extremely respected figure in women’s health—to better  champion women. It is also why I signalled in my statement the importance of data and of breaking it down by sex by default to better target our research on conditions that impact women differently from men or that affect only women and that are often not as well researched as they should be. Again, I think there is common ground on both sides of the House on the issue of research.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to improve training for existing clinicians as well as for those new to the profession. That is why I signalled in my statement our desire to work with the royal colleges and others to make sure that that continuing professional development is there.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of access to HRT. He will be aware that we have put prepayment certificates in place from April next year so that someone will pay only the equivalent of two prescription charges for their HRT supply. Officials in the Department have done considerable work on supply chain issues to tackle some of the difficulties that were there in the past.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about how we address outcomes for patients, I saw a good illustration this morning at Homerton. Redesigning services avoids the need for invasive and more expensive theatre treatment, and the use of new equipment allows a better service to the patient. In the strategy, Professor Dame Lesley Regan makes the point that the irony is that we could deliver services that are far better for the patient but also cheaper for the taxpayer if we embraced a women’s hub model of the sort we see in Homerton. I very much look forward to taking the data we have forward in conversations with other commissioners around the country.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognised and welcomed the removal of barriers to IVF, as will Members on both sides of the House who have seen the challenges that that issue presents in constituency cases.
On speed of service, community diagnostic centres have an important role to play. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of ethnic minorities. We have put in place a maternity disparities taskforce, and ministerial colleagues have already met three times as part of that taskforce, so the characterisation that Ministers are not engaging on the issue is, I am afraid, wide of the mark.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned breast cancer. He will have noted from my statement that an additional £10 million has been targeted specifically at that issue, with a further 25 mobile units. Again, that is about addressing the disparity in women’s health data in different parts of the country.
Overall this is an important strategy. We have listened to the very large number of responses to the consultation, and that is reflected in the strategy. I think this is an area on which there is much common ground on both sides of the House.

Eleanor Laing: And now I call Sajid Javid.

Sajid Javid: There was a time when I would follow right after the shadow Secretary of State, but not any more. However, I am very pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and  I welcome him to his new role. He has the privilege of running a fantastic Department that is so important to the British people. He has excelled in every role he has held in Government so far, and I know he will do so again.
I strongly welcome the women’s health strategy—as we heard, it is the first published by any Government. I congratulate everyone involved, including all the officials and especially the excellent Minister of State, Department for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, and the previous Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries).
Does the Secretary of State agree that, when it comes to women’s health, early diagnosis is essential? I absolutely welcome the commitment in the strategy on mandatory training in women’s health issues for new doctors, but will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what can be done on training for existing doctors and clinicians?

Steve Barclay: The work on this strategy was done before I arrived in the Department, so it was down to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield). It is great to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor for all that he did to drive this agenda forward. He is absolutely right about the importance of training and early diagnosis. That is why addressing the issue of fragmented services is so important. As a respondent said, where women raise concerns, they often feel like a lone voice in the wind—that was a phrase in the strategy that really resonated with me. Having hubs, centres of excellence and the ability to look at that data and identify it early, alongside the other initiatives in which he played a major role as Secretary of State, such as the diagnostic hubs, are all a key part of the delivery of this strategy.

Carolyn Harris: I rise to speak specifically on the menopause services included in the strategy. As co-chair of the Government menopause taskforce, I broadly welcome the strategy but feel that it falls short in some places.
Although better menopause training for doctors of the future is essential, there is not much in the strategy now in terms of upskilling GPs or prescriber medics, such as pharmacists or women’s health nurses. With only 14% of women accessing hormone replacement therapy and menopause care, through medical lack of awareness in diagnosing and prescribing, training medical professionals of the future does nothing for women today.
With 50% of women not even discussing their symptoms, we need a public awareness campaign—outside the one being run by the media and by grassroots and celebrity activists—to ensure that all women get the memo, as it were. We need a commitment to a national formulary for HRT to end postcode lottery in quality, quantity and availability of body identical hormone replacement therapy—I emphasise body identical.
As for HRT costs, I am delighted that my private Member’s Bill that I negotiated with the Government last October now appears as part of the strategy, but  I am bitterly disappointed that the timeframe for  that once annual charge is delayed until April 2023—   18 months after it was promised—demonstrating to me a lack of urgency in dealing with women’s health issues that affect 51% of the population.
As we are talking about delays and women not being listened to, I am still waiting on responses to six letters to either this Secretary of State or to his predecessor dating back to 5 May asking to discuss all the issues that I have raised today. I would be grateful to have a meeting to discuss them further.

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady says that she is not being listened to, but my understanding is that she is co-chair of the menopause taskforce, which has been set up to look at these issues. Indeed, she has also had meetings with officials on the subject of HRT. It is slightly remiss of her to suggest that she is not being listened to when Health Department officials are meeting with her and when we have a taskforce under way. There is much consensus around the points that she raises. She has highlighted, quite rightly, the importance of HRT, and we have acted on that. Part of the reason for the delay until April is that the IT systems need to be put in place. I well recall, when I was a Treasury Minister, being asked to move at pace in response to covid, because of the cash-flow pressures on businesses, and sometimes having the same colleagues complaining that forward controls and other issues had not been put in place. We need to put the right IT in place. We will do that for April, and the work is under way. The issues that she raises are being addressed, but in an effective way.
As I said to the shadow Secretary of State, we will work with the royal colleges to address the issue of training. It is a perfectly fair point, and I do not think there is disagreement in the House on that. On the wider issue of addressing disparities, that is exactly what the taskforce is about. That is why we have such a relentless focus on data, why we have a women’s health ambassador to give greater voice to these issues, and why we have brought forward specific measures, such as the family hubs and mobile breast screening units, to better address those disparities.

Maria Miller: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and its recognition of the need to have specific strategies to make sure that women have equal access to services. However, it is silent on the biggest healthcare injustice that women face in our country—that abortion is still treated under Victorian criminal law, with the most draconian laws in the world. Seventeen women in the past eight years have been subject to criminal investigation, including simply because they suffered the appalling issue of stillbirth. This strategy should stop that by expanding the Government’s own change in the law in Northern Ireland to ensure that abortion is an issue between women and their doctors, and that every woman is protected from criminal investigation at a time when what they need from us is care and compassion.

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is right that there is a need for care and compassion, and she highlights an extremely important point. She will be aware that the sexual health review is currently being conducted. That will report later this year and will look into the issue that she raises.[Official Report, 5 September 2022, Vol. 719, c. 2MC.]

Stephanie Peacock: How will this strategy address the postcode lottery associated with gynaecological wait times?

Steve Barclay: Again, it is partly by having an ambassador that will be tasked with advocating in that space, by having the data to give visibility to that, and also by working in partnership with commissioning groups, with the NHS, and with the royal colleges on training, that much greater focus will be brought to these issues.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the Government for bringing forward this strategy. It really is astonishing that this is the first Government ever to have produced such a strategy. Will my right hon. Friend use this to drive forward improvements in care for endometriosis, including, in particular, updating the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines NG73 to make sure that people have earlier diagnoses and better access to pain relief for this debilitating condition, of which too many doctors do not have a high enough awareness?

Steve Barclay: That was one of the key issues that came out of the consultation responses. Indeed, in my conversation with Dr Watson at Homerton, we looked at different pathways for treatment that avoid the need for theatre. Key to that is some of the innovation on pain management that physicians are looking at, and how, through NICE, we socialise that innovation across the NHS.

Chi Onwurah: The north-east has some of the highest levels of health inequality in the country. North-east women spend more than a quarter of their lives in not good or poor health, which is almost 3 percentage points above the national average. Will the Secretary of State set out the steps that he plans to take to target those areas that already have high levels of inequality? Does he agree that, when he talks about research—I very much welcome the additional research—that should also target areas with high levels of existing inequality, which, unfortunately, is not the case at the moment?

Steve Barclay: We are already doing so on things such as the 75 family hubs that we have put in place. Again, a key part of this strategy is to then look at having women’s hubs, particularly in those areas where there is greatest disparity.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and the appointment of Dame Lesley Regan as the women’s health ambassador. I know them both to be very passionate and outcome-focused, and, between the two of them, I hope that we will make some headway. He rightly talks about how women do not feel listened to, and we know that women go for many years suffering from very common gynaecological conditions that do not get diagnosed. What role does he think that more public health education about healthy menstruation and what constitutes a healthy period can play to make sure that women are more empowered to look after themselves and get treatment earlier?

Steve Barclay: I thank my hon. Friend for her warm welcome. I agree with her about empowering patients, women in particular, with information. That is why part  of the strategy is to focus on the information provided on the NHS website. There is also the need to work with trusted partners—to look at where people go for their health information, and how we can better empower them. For example, in the consultation, we heard of patients being told that heavy bleeding was normal—that it was something that they had to accept. Again, that was an issue highlighted by respondents in the call for evidence. It is about making sure people realise that, where there are issues, their voices are heard. That is at the heart of the strategy that we have set out.

Hannah Bardell: I am delighted to see the UK Government follow in the footsteps of the Scottish Government with a women’s health plan. I am also pleased to see that they have taken on board the Stonewall campaign to bring the rest of the UK into line with Scotland on female same-sex couples’ access to in vitro fertilisation, because for far too long it has been a postcode lottery and lesbians have been discriminated against.
As co-chair, with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, I am pleased to see the recommendations for more research and better care for those who suffer from that condition, but can we be certain that that will be backed up by proper support and funding? Women’s healthcare champions are fantastic, but they cannot replace proper funding and a proper strategy. I pay tribute to the work of Sir David Amess: I have no doubt that this strategy and the endometriosis aspects of it would not be there without the great work he did as chair of the all-party group.

Steve Barclay: I thank the hon. Lady in particular for that tribute to the work Sir David contributed to this, and agree with her on the issue of same-sex couples having access to IVF. She is right about better research and how we highlight that; that is a key part of the strategy. It is also interesting from the comments of the health ambassador that services can be reconfigured in a way that gives better outcomes for the patient without leading to higher cost. By having centres of excellence where the woman’s voice is heard, treatment comes more quickly and that delivers better patient outcomes.

Alec Shelbrooke: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and say how good it is that he has had direct experience with Kath Sansom and the work of Sling the Mesh? I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy); the three of us have worked closely cross-party to bring these issues to the Floor in Westminster Hall debates and in this Chamber, which I think has played a big part in today’s strategy. I thank them across the House for that work.
Within the strategy there is talk of centres of excellence and mesh centres, but those must be carefully monitored, because we are getting a lot of feedback now that mesh centres are perhaps not working in the way we think they are. That must be carefully monitored, and data collections may not be working in the way my right hon. Friend would hope, so that will be important.
I welcome the strategy on listening to women. Anecdotally, too often the words “sexist” and “misogynist” have been used about the NHS’s attitude to women, and we need to move to a stage where those words are no longer used and it is not saying, “Go and take some painkillers,” patting them on the head and saying, “It’s all very normal.”
On that final point, will my right hon. Friend talk to our right hon. Friend the Education Secretary about teaching in school about diseases such as endometriosis? If people do not know a disease exists, how can they know they have it? That is an important point. Overall, I welcome this strategy as a massive step forward, but we must all recognise that we cannot give up. There is much more to do to ensure that what is in the strategy actually works.

Steve Barclay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned for many years on this; mesh is a particular issue that he and I have spoken about in the past. On the quality of data I am very happy to work with him on any specific examples, and indeed with colleagues across the House, because I know there are others who have worked closely on the mesh campaign, to see how we get the right consistency and the right analysis of data, because that is a shared interest of all of us in the House today.
In terms of the Department for Education, I am very happy to take the matter forward with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to look at what schools can do to raise awareness. That ties in with the wider point about ensuring that patients have the right information and that, where issues and concerns arise, they are not fobbed off but taken seriously.

Olivia Blake: There have certainly been times, including now, when it has been very difficult for me to talk about my experience of miscarriage—an experience that is shared by one in five women and that happens in one in four pregnancies.
Last year, I held a debate and got the Government to agree to support some of the measures in the review on miscarriage in The Lancet, named “Miscarriage Matters”. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists now supports abandoning the three miscarriage rule in favour of a stepped response and graded model of care.
However, I want to know whether the other things promised at the end of that debate are included in this strategy. The first was access for everyone to 24/7 care. The second was data and recording of miscarriage on medical records; when I was called for my flu jab and asked why I had been called, the nurse said, “Because you’re pregnant,” then looked down and said, “Oh, well, you’re not, are you?” The third was stopping the need for unnecessary miscarriages by making the care better; we can prevent miscarriage in some cases even when it is beginning, and stop people having multiple miscarriages and having to live with this pain, increasing their risk of suicide.
We could do so much more. Miscarriages are taboo and too often they are put in the “too hard to deal with” box. A certificate would be lovely, yes, but that is not enough. We need adequate care that rapidly reduces  the need for people to go through this trauma again  and again.

Steve Barclay: The heart of the whole House goes out to the hon. Lady, because the trauma of those experiences is so visible; I am hugely grateful for the powerful way she highlights them to the House. She will be aware that we have the pregnancy loss review reporting later this year, and we will be looking at the important issues she raises. I know she met recently with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), to discuss those and, as someone new to post, I will certainly look closely at the points she raises.

Flick Drummond: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), because I know exactly what she is feeling. This is the place to make a difference, so I offer her every encouragement to keep going. This is an extremely good strategy and will make a difference to women. I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that domestic violence has a dramatic impact on women’s health, particularly for women who are reluctant or embarrassed to go to their GP. Can he ensure that there is more training in primary care settings to recognise and help those vulnerable women?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of tackling domestic abuse. Indeed, last year the Government brought forward and the House passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in recognition of that. There is an important read-across from issues of domestic abuse into the wider piece about data and how that in turn links into prosecutions, evidence gathering and empowering those who are victims with the support they need. It is an extremely important issue, and it is important that we take that legislation forward.

Mohammad Yasin: We know that midwives and maternity services are struggling across the country. In my own constituency, we have seen Bedford hospital, despite its best efforts, struggling with midwife recruitment and retention. What steps are the Government actively taking as part of the women’s health strategy to ensure that maternity services are well staffed and resourced?

Steve Barclay: While this strategy sets out a number of future steps, there are also steps we have already taken, including on maternity services. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have announced an extra £127 million of support for the NHS maternity workforce and £95 million to recruit an additional 1,200 midwives and 100 consultant obstetricians. Steps have been taken, and more steps are set out in this strategy.

Caroline Dinenage: As one of the former Health Ministers who carried the baton on this strategy for some time, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s words and his commitment. It is so important—not least the commitment to addressing some of the fertility inequalities across the country. I met with his predecessor because my constituency is one of those most severely affected by that postcode inequity.
As my right hon. Friend says, there are some real health inequalities in the services provided—not just for women, but between women, particularly those women who are vulnerable and hardest to reach. It is not just about money, which is why I am pleased with his  commitment to hubs, but about ensuring that integrated care systems have a focus on place and on the needs of local communities. I would love him to commit more to that.
Since 2015, there has reportedly been a 42% real-terms fall in contraception spending, so I would also like to have my right hon. Friend’s commitment that this document will align with the sexual and reproductive health action plan. That is important because for every £1 spent on those services, we save £9 on other public health spending.

Steve Barclay: I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend did as a Health Minister in championing this agenda. She is right to highlight the difficulty, often, of accessing contraception, which is very much at the heart of the responses we had on the fragmented service that many women have experienced. She will be aware that a key part of our approach is the health and wellbeing funds and working with the voluntary and community sector on support in areas such as pregnancy loss.
A key part of this is the visibility of the women’s health strategy. Putting that to the fore in terms of a women’s health ambassador is, as she says, part of these conversations with the integrated care systems to ensure that this gets greater prioritisation within commissioning. A key part of securing that is having the data to demonstrate its importance and benefits.

Munira Wilson: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for her very powerful and moving personal testimony.
Last year, my constituent Nicola experienced her seventh miscarriage, which was her third in just 12 months. One in 100 women suffers recurrent miscarriage, often without known cause and without effective treatment, and a disproportionate number are black, Asian and other ethnic minority women.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to boost research in this area, but I am afraid that we have not heard any specifics on how much. Last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Research spent only 5% of its budget on reproductive health and childbirth, yet these issues affect some 17% of the population. Will he give an indication of how much more he is going to spend on research in this area?

Steve Barclay: Through highlighting the tragic case of Nicola, the hon. Lady demonstrates very effectively why research in this area is so important and the fact that it has been insufficient in the past. The amount of funding is, to a large extent, shaped by the research proposals that come forward. A key part of the strategy is the clear signal that we are sending to the research community that we are encouraging those willing to do research in the areas that have not been focused on in the past so that funding can be prioritised to them.

Emma Hardy: As joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, with the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), and as joint chair of the APPG on surgical mesh, with the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), I welcome this strategy, but I want to raise two issues that we would be really keen for the Secretary of State to look at.
First, we would like to see all the recommendations of the Cumberlege review implemented, including redress for the people impacted by vaginal mesh. Secondly, it was good to hear him talk about recognising how women’s health affects women in the workplace, but the charity Endometriosis UK is promoting making workplaces endometriosis-friendly by recognising that women who have endometriosis may have shorter periods of time off more regularly, which, in terms of HR policy, is frowned on and looked on badly, resulting in some women losing their jobs through no fault of their own.

Steve Barclay: I know from my own involvement in the mesh campaign just how central the hon. Lady’s role was in it, and I pay tribute the work that she has done on that and a number of other campaigns over recent years. In respect of mesh, she will be aware that an annual review is published. On the workplace issue, a key thing that comes out of the report is the significance of the time off work that many women are experiencing, with the difficulty, quite often, in having these conversations with employers. It is very welcome that the civil service has taken a lead, as has the NHS, in certain aspects of that, but there will clearly be more to do, and the point she raises will be part of that wider conversation.

Diana R. Johnson: I welcome the appointment of the women’s health ambassador, Dame Lesley Regan. It is an excellent appointment to that role.
The 2020 report on access to contraception by the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health found that the current fragmented commissioning arrangements have a severe impact on women’s access to contraception due to a lack of joined-up services. With 45% of pregnancies in England being unplanned, what specific plans does the Secretary of State have to remove the barriers to co-commissioning of reproductive healthcare to require different parts of the system to work together to meet women’s healthcare needs?

Steve Barclay: I welcome the hon. Lady’s acknowledgement of the expertise that Professor Dame Lesley Regan brings as ambassador. I think she will be fantastic in that role. A key part of this strategy is addressing the fragmented health system and how that impacts on areas such as contraception. That is why we are having, for example, the women’s health hubs to provide a one-stop shop and centre of expertise so that we can better identify the services that people need.

Rachel Hopkins: Black women are four times more likely to die during pregnancy and childbirth. What targeted preventive solutions will the maternity disparities taskforce apply to address this totally unacceptable position?

Steve Barclay: We are working through the taskforce’s recommendations and will publish our response shortly. Part of the reason the taskforce was set up is the disparity in data, which we clearly need to address.

Ruth Cadbury: I really welcome this women’s strategy and hope that it will mean better care for women in relation to gynaecological and reproductive issues, breast cancer and so on, but it needs to go further. Too often, women experiencing severe levels of pain are sent away from their GP with painkillers and find out further down the line, sometimes too late, that they were actually experiencing a real health problem, whether lupus, cancer or one of any number of health conditions. This is backed up by a 2021 study that showed that men and women experiencing the same levels of pain are not treated equally by clinicians. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the focus on clinical training and retraining also addresses gender stereotyping in diagnosis and support?

Steve Barclay: Part of the reason this is a 10-year strategy is that we do need a change of culture as well as a change of systems, and that is what the strategy maps out. A key component of that is how we empower patients through areas such as the NHS website, working with trusted partners who provide health information. The hon. Lady is also right about training, not just for new entrants into the medical profession but for existing clinicians. We will be working with the royal colleges and others to drive that forward.

Eleanor Laing: And finally, Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have the strongest legs in the Chamber.
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of additional moneys for women’s health training. He referred to one-stop clinics. I coincidentally spoke to a medical student who graduated in Cardiff today, who feels that more is needed for the specialty of women’s health, and specifically the menopause, which the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned. What training will be extended to GPs, in the context of one-stop clinics, to ensure that each surgery has a trained GP available to advise and to help?

Steve Barclay: One of the key issues highlighted in the response to the call for evidence was how areas such as the menopause were being dealt with by the NHS. That is why we have a menopause taskforce looking at specific recommendations, one of which concerns the training of clinicians.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Secretary of State and everyone who took part in the statement.

Points of Order

Anna McMorrin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) has, at just a couple of hours’ notice, today notified the Environmental Audit Committee that both he and his officials are withdrawing from today’s critically important evidence session on North sea oil and gas transition, which was due to start at 3.20 this afternoon. This was done without explanation or apology. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you agree that this shows extreme discourtesy to the House and a complete disregard for scrutiny?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for having given me notice of her intention to make a point of order. I am most concerned about the point that she raises. It is indeed, as she suggests, a discourtesy to the Committee, and therefore to the House, for a senior Minister to withdraw from an advertised session to give evidence on an important matter. Mr Speaker has repeatedly said that it is extremely important that Ministers give evidence to Committees in a timely way. That is a perfectly reasonable rule or convention of this place, and I trust that the Committee will note the displeasure of the Chair and that the Secretary of State will hopefully, through his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, realise that he has been discourteous and in the first instance apologise and, secondly, appear before the Committee as soon as possible.

John Nicolson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on 19 May, when responding to a question from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport claimed that the Channel 4 reality series “Tower Block of Commons” deceived the viewing public using actors rather than real tower block residents. She said:
“They were not really living in a flat—they were not real. They were actually actors.”
Indeed, she claimed that a number of the participants had confessed this to her at a subsequent dinner in the House of Commons. It is a serious charge, not least since the Secretary of State currently holds the fate of Channel 4 in her hands.
Channel 4 has now investigated and interviewed the production company and all the participants who dined with the Secretary of State, who said that the conversation she cited never happened. Channel 4 has released a detailed report rebutting the Secretary of State’s claim. The Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), wrote urgently to the Secretary of State, offering her the opportunity to withdraw her claim, but she has refused to do so. Misleading the Select Committee is obviously a serious matter, so can I ask for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, about what I and other Members can now do, given the impending recess and the Secretary of State’s possible impending flight to another place?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. First, I caution him to be very careful when he says in this place that a Member has  misled anyone in the course of their duties in this House, before a Committee or in the Chamber. If any misleading has been done, it will of course have been inadvertent, and I would be grateful if in the first instance he would acknowledge that any misleading would be inadvertent.

John Nicolson: The Secretary of State has a reputation for extreme probity, so I am sure that is the case.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is probably as good as I am going to get. He will appreciate that it is not for the Chair to assess whether evidence given to a Committee is accurate, but I understand why he wants to raise the point before the House today. If the Committee concludes that information has been given that is not in fact accurate, it will be up to the Committee to decide how to pursue the matter and possibly construct another evidence session. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House.

Alexander Stafford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Rother Valley Labour party has this week been running paid-for Facebook attack adverts featuring images of my wife and my two children, one of whom is seven months old and one of whom is 27 months old. Images of my young family have also been circulated online in an attack post by a Rotherham Labour councillor. Like many MPs in this place, my family and I have faced death threats and threats of violence, and the circulation of images on attack posts, including by Rother Valley Labour members who I had to block previously for harassment, puts the lives of my family at further risk.
I have written to the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), asking him to suspend the Labour party members involved and to formally investigate the individuals responsible. What further guidance can you offer, Madam Deputy Speaker, to political parties and journalists on the unauthorised usage of pictures of MPs’ young children and families?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his point of order.
This is an appalling situation. Regardless of political party persuasion, everyone present in the Chamber will share my serious concern about the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described. I will be careful about what I say, and I urge him to be careful about what he says, because this is really a matter of security, and we do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House. I hope that he is in contact with the parliamentary security team about it. If he would care to contact me privately, I will make sure that the case is taken up by the parliamentary security team.
I cannot be too strong in making the point from the Chair—Mr Speaker has said this many times—that we all deplore any attempts to attack the families of those of us who are engaged in politics. That is bad enough when those families are grown up and able to defend themselves, but it is nothing less than appalling when the family concerned are very small children. The hon. Gentleman and his family have my sympathy, but also  my attention. Let us take this matter forward and make sure that the parliamentary security authorities can deal with it.

Jane Stevenson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was horrified to hear of the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), but I want to raise other cases of abuse. I feel that these attack ads are deliberately formulated to stoke up anger and contempt for Members on the Government Benches. I have received a death threat on the back of Labour’s attack ads, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), although he is not able to say so himself. His children were threatened on the back of these ads. These attack ads have consequences. The consequences of our actions should be on us, and I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we should deal with these things.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her further point of order. Again, I am appalled and have every sympathy with her and indeed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), who I appreciate because of his Government position cannot raise this matter on the Floor of the House on his own behalf. The hon. Lady is speaking both for herself and for him.
This is an appalling state of affairs, and once again I will say what I said to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) a few months ago: it is a matter to be dealt with by the parliamentary security team, who will take it very seriously. Again, if the hon. Members have not had a timely response from the parliamentary security team, although I am sure they will, I ask them to please come privately to me and I will take the matter up on their behalf. It is appalling that deliberate attacks are made on the young families of Members of Parliament. It directly undermines our democratic system and the freedom that our democracy protects.

Sara Britcliffe: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) has had to go through is disgusting. My thoughts are with his family; it must be an awful situation to be in. Sadly, I have seen this kind of abuse from my local Labour party in Hyndburn; there have been a series of events in which people have tried to undermine me and my confidence, including through these misleading attack ads, which show our faces. It got to a point where, for a time, I did not feel comfortable going back to my constituency, and feared for my safety. All I am trying to do is represent the people of Hyndburn and Haslingden. As a young woman, I want people to come into politics, but I worry that, when they witness this constant abuse, and personal attacks on Members of Parliament, it pushes them away. I seek advice on how we can improve this culture, call this behaviour out, and call it what it is: unacceptable.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The behaviour that she describes is indeed unacceptable. She asks for my advice; I will give the same advice that I gave other   hon. Members a few minutes ago. The Parliamentary Security Department is a most efficient and hard-working organisation. I am constantly in touch with it on behalf of Members, as is Mr Speaker. I meet the Director of Security regularly, and get updates on matters that affect Members. We take these matters very seriously indeed, and it is simply not acceptable that the hon. Lady feels unsafe going to her constituency. It is very important that these matters are dealt with, not only for the sake of Members of this House, their families and friends, but for the protection of the democracy for which we all work, and through which we defend freedom in this country. I hope that the hon. Lady will bring the exact details to me privately, because the exact details should not be discussed on the Floor of the House.

Chris Clarkson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) says is all too familiar and depressing. I have had my own experience with Labour party attack ads, but that is not the issue that I want to raise in this point of order.
On Monday, in the debate on confidence in the Government, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I have notified him of this, and he has acknowledged the notification—mentioned my sexuality, and told me that I should be ashamed to support the Government. The Chair ruled that that was in order, and I accept that. However, all too predictably, the next morning, my inbox was full of the vilest, most threatening and homophobic abuse possible. It specifically referenced the hon. Gentleman and support for what he said. This is not my first experience of senior Members of the Labour party dishing out abuse, and of my having to live with the consequences. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance on how we ensure that Members are mindful of the consequences of the language that they use in the Chamber, and how it may affect other Members?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is appalling that—[Interruption.] We will not have an exchange while I am answering a point of order. It is unacceptable and extremely concerning that the hon. Gentleman has had death threats; it is a dreadful situation. As I said in answer to other points of order, the parliamentary security team will take this matter very seriously. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the incident was sparked by something that an Opposition Member said about him in the House; I was present when that happened, so I can say to him what Mr Speaker has said on many occasions, and what the other Madam Deputy Speaker said at the time: “Erskine May” makes it clear, and we all know, that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary debate. All Members should employ good temper and moderation at all times, no matter how strongly they feel about the matter under debate. If the hon. Gentleman continues to have difficulties, I hope that he will come directly to me privately, so that the parliamentary security team can look at the problem.

Bills Presented

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Kit Malthouse, Secretary Greg Clark, Mr Simon Clarke, Lucy Frazer, Alan Mak and Richard Fuller, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of financial services and markets; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 146) with explanatory notes (Bill 146-EN).

Firearms and Hate Crime Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Luke Pollard, supported by Sir Gary Streeter, Mr Ben Bradshaw, Karin Smyth, Abena Oppong-Asare, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Anne Marie Morris, Alex Sobel, Alyn Smith, Selaine Saxby, Valerie Vaz and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of pump action firearms in homes, with exemptions for professional pest controllers and farmers; to make provision about medical requirements for holders of firearms certificates; to make provision about the disclosure of mental health concerns relating to holders of firearms certificates; to extend offences of stirring up hatred to cover hatred on the basis of sex or gender; to make motivation by misogyny an aggravating factor in sentencing for violent crimes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 147).

Bus Services Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Helen Morgan, supported by Richard Foord, Tim Farron, Wera Hobhouse and Jamie Stone, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Government to ensure that every town with a population of more than 10,000 people has a regular bus service operating seven days a week, and that local health services, including hospitals and GP surgeries, are served by those buses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 148).

Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Richard Holden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the extension of pensions automatic enrolment to jobholders under the age of 22; to make provision about the lower qualifying earnings threshold for automatic enrolment; and for connected purposes.
I agree with the comments that you made a few moments ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, about my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), and for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). The abuse that they have recently received has been unbelievable. All of us need to be able to go about our business in the House and in our constituency without fear, so that we can serve our constituents as best we can.
I thank not only the Bill’s sponsors, but my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), and for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), who have indicated their support for the legislation. Many other Members have also told me privately that they are very supportive of the Bill.
The Bill amends sections 3 and 5 of the Pensions Act 2008 to lower the age of auto-enrolment to 18, and section 13 to lower the earnings limit. Crucially, it allows the Secretary of State to make those change through regulations. The legislation does not bring in those changes now, automatically; it puts the ability to do so in the hands of the Secretary of State, who can, in accordance with our manifesto, bring those changes forward in due course, when the Government feel that the time is right.
I thank my the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has been so supportive throughout the process; he was supportive when I brought forward a private Member’s Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill in the last Session, and this Bill. I am also grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I spoke in a brief meeting today. I look forward to further fruitful discussions with him in the not-too-distant future.
The legislation would drive forward a major change in policy. It is worth a huge amount of money—it will roll in over a long period—to people in lower-paid work, and to people who start work at age 18. It is worth trillions of pounds over the 50-year working lifetime of the current labour force. This policy was introduced in the Conservative party manifesto, and has been recommitted to, at the Dispatch Box, since the 2019 general election.
This Bill on the expansion of auto-enrolment is about helping people to entrench their ambition for the future, and about protecting them in retirement. It is about people’s ambition to look after themselves, their families and their communities—the towns and villages they live in. In North West Durham, that includes communities from Consett to Crook, and from Lanehead to Langley Park. It means an extension of the transformation that we have seen with auto-enrolment over the past few years—an extension that will be as big as the share ownership changes of the 1980s and right to buy under the then Conservative Administration, enabling people to look after themselves and provide for their families into the future. At the moment, three quarters of those aged over 22 are automatically enrolled into pension schemes and, for every 50p, £1 is saved. Yet for those under the age of 22, the figure is only 20%. The Bill will make a massive difference to the lives of those young workers.
For part-time workers, auto-enrolment stands at below 60%, compared with almost 90% of workers in full-time jobs. If we assume that a move from the age of 22 to 18 will bring about a similar take-up, the Bill will see roughly an extra third of the part-time workforce auto-enrolled, which is an increase of 50% on present numbers. That would mean that millions of people—mostly women, those from ethnic minority communities, and those who are socially disadvantaged—would be brought into lifetime savings for their futures. The Bill seeks to make a difference to the lives of those people.
Analysis by the think-tank Onward shows exactly where such people are located. They are in places such as North West Durham, Workington in Cumbria, Hyndburn in Lancashire and Mansfield in Nottinghamshire—the parts of the red wall that the Conservative party won at the last general election—as well as in large parts of the south-west, the midlands, Scotland, north Wales and the north-east. They are from areas of the country that are seeking the broad transformative change that this Conservative Government are seeking to achieve.
Let me give a couple of examples. First, the Bill would mean that a full-time worker on the national living wage would gain almost an extra £100,000 over their lifetime—a 60% increase on today. That is not money that goes out all in one block, but small savings over time when the change has been introduced after the next general election; it is about an incremental change to make real differences to people’s lives.
The average younger worker aged between 18 and 22 who is working full-time on the living wage would pay in just a few hundred pounds a year—literally a few pounds a week—but with 50 years of compound interest, £1,000 paid in over three years could mean £25,000 to £30,000 added to their pension pot at the end of their life. That is a huge difference.
There is one example that really astounds me. People who earn £9,000 from two separate jobs—who may be working 12 to 18 hours a week, juggling their jobs around childcare or caring responsibilities—do not currently get the benefits of auto-enrolment at all. Under this legislation, somebody in that position would see their pension savings almost triple to up to £300,000 over a lifetime. That might mean that they could give their children a deposit and help themselves out in retirement. It could give them that comfort, the ability to look after younger family members in later life, and security in retirement and old age, so that they are not reliant on  the state, but self-reliant. Those are real examples from people I have met in my constituency, and our party should be doing everything possible to help those people with their long-term savings.
The Government’s programme of auto-enrolment expansion has been fantastic. It is not hyperbolic to say that it is one of the best changes the country has seen over the last 10 years. With all the evidence of the huge positive impact it can have, it is a no-brainer that we now need to extend auto-enrolment to those aged 18 and above. It is outrageous that the legislation currently says to graduates, “As soon as you graduate, you will be auto-enrolled,” but to kids in my constituency, 70% of whom leave school aged 18 and go into work, “You aren’t auto-enrolled until you’re 22 years old.” It is a scandal that we need to deal with. The more that young people save and the sooner they save, the more they will get into a routine of saving, and the more they will be providing for themselves and their security in retirement.
This is a serious piece of legislation that could make a serious change. It is about bringing people security in their old age, at minimal cost to them when they are younger. It is about engineering a revolution for working-class people who are undertaking apprenticeships, among other things. The changes were initially thought of back in the late ’70s and were talked about again in the late 1990s, but it is only now that they are being pushed for in this private Member’s Bill, which would mean a real expansion of auto-enrolment to everybody, so that everybody has their own pension in addition to their state pension in retirement and has that comfort in old age.
We must table legislation now so that businesses can prepare for the future. There is no better way to help low-paid workers in constituencies like mine who have gone through the pandemic, sometimes with great difficulty, such as those in the retail sector and the care sector. They are the ones who will directly benefit from this legislation.
I must be clear that this policy will have no fiscal impact before the next general election; it will just create the primary legislation necessary for the Bill’s implementation, without tying the hands of future Ministers. It leaves the details of secondary legislation for the future Government to stipulate and ultimately implement. The aim is not to tie anyone’s hands, but to have legislation that is ready to go. It is about giving a signal to business, and a signal to society and working people that we are on their side.
This legislation will transform the lives of the millions of working people who are often not in great jobs but in low-paid work, and who are the backbone of our country. Votes were lent to us at the last general election, and we have to deliver for those people. Alongside changes such as those to Solvency II, the Bill could help to put cash into communities such as North West Durham and help to provide the extra private sector money to deliver the levelling up we need, because it cannot all be delivered through the Government and taxpayers’ cash. We need to think creatively and constructively to deliver long-term investment outside of metropolitan London. This Bill seems like one of the clearest and easiest ways to do so, and to benefit the working people of the country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Holden, Robbie Moore, Shaun Bailey, Nicola Richards, Miriam Cates, Simon Jupp, Mark Eastwood, Anthony Browne, Aaron Bell, Jonathan Gullis and Sir Gavin Williamson present the Bill.
Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 149).

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will realise that there was a point of order a little while ago from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who said that he had notified me in advance of the point of order, in which he named me, as you know. In actual fact, he sent me an email at 2.20 pm, in which he said, “I wanted to make you aware that I intend to name you in the Chamber today,”, but he did not say when, when he perfectly well knew he was going to do it in about five minutes’ time. I replied, “When, and in what context? I don’t think that is a proper notification.” He replied, “The consequences of intemperate language in the Chamber.” It is perfectly fair for him to raise a point of order, but he did not give me proper notice; I think you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is not proper notice. If he had given me proper notice, I would have made sure that I was in the Chamber to answer it for the convenience of the House.
Secondly, the hon. Member said that I had referred to his sexuality in the debate on Monday. I would never, ever do so; and as Hansard records, I did not do so. That is simply untrue. I very much hope that the hon. Member will withdraw that allegation. I certainly do think that there are problems relating to the way in which the Government have created a hostile environment for LGBT people in this country. [Interruption.] I am simply citing the former Government Equalities Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who said so himself when he resigned. That was the only point that I was making.
I, of course, wholly abhor and hate the idea that anybody, as a result of anything I might say either in this Chamber or anywhere else, might have death threats addressed towards them. I have had plenty myself and have had the police at my house this week, so I wholly deplore that idea. If there is any sense in which the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton has felt antagonised and that that has been brought on by anything I have said, I apologise, but I would say that I did not say what  he said I did; I simply quoted the former Conservative Government Equalities Minister, who, when he resigned, said that he was doing so because the Government were creating a hostile environment for LGBT people in this country.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have to separate out from what he said that which is a point of order for the Chair and that which is an expression of political opinion. He is entitled to his political opinion and I, of course, would make no comment on it whatsoever. If the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) has not properly given notice to the hon. Gentleman that he intended to mention him here in the Chamber, then that is quite simply wrong. I cannot, from the information that is available to me now, ascertain whether due notice was given or not, but I will discuss the matter with Mr Speaker and consider the evidence.
The hon. Gentleman also makes reference to what was said here in the Chamber on Monday evening. I was still in the Chamber at the moment of the exchange, having just left the Chair, and it would be an understatement to say that tempers were running high on all sides that evening. As I mentioned a few moments ago, good temper and moderation ought to be the characteristics of parliamentary debate. I am not satisfied that either good temper or moderation were present at that point in the debate on Monday evening, and I sincerely hope that, however strongly Members feel about a particular issue that they are addressing, we can approach most matters in a calm fashion that will allow us to debate the facts rather than the emotions—although I am not negating the place of emotions in some debates.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave it with me to look further into this matter.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 27 June 2022 (Northern Ireland Protocol Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) shall be omitted.
(2) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the third day of proceedings in Committee and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on that day.—(Suzanne Webb.)

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

[3rd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee
[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 29 June 2022, on Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol, HC 285.]
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Clause 13 - Implementation, application, supervision and enforcement of the Protocol

Stephen Doughty: I beg to move amendment 38, page 7, line 27, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 39, in clause 14, page 8, line 22, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 14 stand part.
Amendment 12, in clause 18, page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment would remove the Minister’s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.
Amendment 42, page 10, line 11, leave out
“the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate”
and insert “it is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Amendment 48, page 10, line 12, after “this Act” insert
“and a motion approving the conduct has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would subject the exercise of the Minister’s power to engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol that is not otherwise authorised by the Act to a motion approving the conduct in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 49, page 10, line 15, at end insert—
“(3) Each Minister of the Crown must have due regard for the principle that the Belfast Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, should be protected in all its parts.”
This amendment is based on the fourth point in the Preamble to Northern Ireland Protocol.
Clause 18 stand part.
Amendment 46, in clause 20, page 10, line 32, at end insert—
“But this section may not be brought into force unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would prevent the Bill’s proposed departure from the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, or from any related provision of the EU withdrawal agreement, in respect of the previously agreed role of the European Court (CJEU) unless clause 20 had first been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 13, page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (2)(b).
This amendment would remove the prohibition on a court or tribunal referring any matter to the European Court, where the matter relates to the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, or domestic law relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, given that subsection (4) would give ministers the power to make regulations regarding references on a question of interpretation of EU law to be made by Courts and Tribunals.
Amendment 43, page 10, line 38, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 20 stand part.

Stephen Doughty: It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, as we enter the third day of Committee on the Bill. As we do so, it is evident that instead of working to fix the genuine challenges that the protocol poses, the Government continue to push forward with a Bill that disregards the UK’s international legal obligations and threatens to throw Britain’s global reputation into disrepute, and which also—we shall discuss this today—gives them sweeping powers without restriction. Tearing up binding agreements, threatening to break international law and walking away from the table are not the composites of a good negotiating strategy; they are the hallmarks of a zombie Government, out of steam—a Government who have constantly put their own party squabbles and obsessions before the interests of the people of the UK, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.
Tragically, they also risk dividing the UK and the European Union when we should be standing shoulder to shoulder in opposing Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine, and in finding ways to make Brexit work in a spirit of trust and co-operation. This is not how a responsible Government should behave, and many Members across the House know that. What we need is cool heads, statesmanlike behaviour and a search for long-term solutions.
On the Opposition Benches, we feel that the Bill is counterproductive, but that solutions are there if the Government are prepared to seek them. That requires compromise, hard work, and flexibility on all sides, including of course the EU, not knee-jerk reactions. I have listened to the very many genuine concerns that have been voiced about the functioning of the protocol. I have the pleasure of being a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in addition to my shadow Front Bench role. I have listened to businesses. I have been in Dublin and Belfast. I have listened to people on all sides and have heard genuine concerns, including from those in the Unionist community.
For months, Labour has called on the Government to do the responsible thing—get back around the table to do what we have always done, and what any Government worth its salt would do, which is to negotiate, in the interests of finding workable, practical and technocratic solutions that command the consent and support of all communities in Northern Ireland, and have the means to bring back power sharing in a meaningful and lasting way. In that spirit, we have offered amendments to the Bill today in good faith, to begin to correct the issues that are manifest across this legislation—starting today with the Henry VIII clauses that we have heard about, and which the amendment that we have tabled in this group address.
As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out during Second Reading, 15 of the 26 clauses included in the Bill confer powers directly on UK Ministers. Those include the power to use secondary legislation to amend or modify Acts of Parliament—Acts that have been subject to the full scrutiny of this House. As the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law sets out, the Henry VIII powers given to Ministers in the Bill
“are numerous, extensive and subject to very low hurdles before those powers may be exercised.”
Indeed, Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad”. The Hansard Society, deeply respected on both sides of the House, describes them as “breath-taking”. And we should not just take their word for it. The Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), last week put it perfectly when he said,
“there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together.”
He went on to describe the Henry VIII powers as
“almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 370.]
Awarding Ministers these enormous powers is not a strategy, and the people of Northern Ireland will see it for what it is—a blatant power grab.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst identified one of the key problems with these powers when he explained that the test that Ministers must meet before using these powers is “extraordinarily low”. I agree. As the Bill currently stands, in many cases Ministers may use these powers merely if they consider it “appropriate” to do so. That is simply not good enough. Not only is that a woefully low threshold, but it lacks any kind of objectivity. We cannot have a situation where Ministers can make sweeping changes that are not necessarily in the interests of all communities of Northern Ireland, and without proper scrutiny and process; and those of us on the Opposition Benches are extremely concerned about what Ministers may deem appropriate in the future.

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have just one point to add. Does he agree that there is a certain irony in the fact that probably large numbers of the 52% who voted for Brexit voted to strengthen, solidify and consolidate parliamentary sovereignty, but these Henry VIII powers are strengthening the hand of Government and weakening  the hand of Parliament? Does not that seem to run directly counter to what many people who voted for Brexit were voting for?

Stephen Doughty: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed the Bill not only takes powers away from this place, but takes on powers without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Further to that point, I do not understand why the official Opposition don’t get it. There is a democratic deficit as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. The hon. Member bemoans the fact that Parliament might lose some powers to the Government, but in Northern Ireland we today are faced with the imposition of regulations—hundreds and hundreds of them—over which neither Parliament nor the Government have any say, nor the Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive, yet I hear nothing from the Opposition Benches about that democratic deficit. At least the Government are attempting to address it. What do the official Opposition intend to do about it?

Stephen Doughty: I always listen with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman. He talks about a democratic deficit. The Government, of course, negotiated the protocol. He has been consistent in his criticisms of it. The Government knew that when they negotiated it. They knew there were issues that needed to be addressed. It seems to me very odd that the Government are proposing to take a huge amount of powers that would have no scrutiny in this place and no scrutiny in Northern Ireland.

Claire Hanna: We hear a lot about the egregious use of powers and regulations being imposed, but we hear very little about what specific powers people do not want to have. I think they are about the volume of lawnmowers and other such crucial things. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more damaging to democracy to withhold the Northern Ireland Assembly, in which elected Members are supposed to address wider issues around health, education, the economy and everyday issues for Northern Ireland? The Assembly being withheld creates a far wider democratic deficit.

Stephen Doughty: Indeed. The point I have made is that the powers the Government are taking remove responsibilities from the Northern Ireland Assembly. We want all communities to have a say on matters that affect them going forward. I am sure we will come on to a number of those amendments in due course.
In the same vein, we would support amendment 12,  which relates to clause 18, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), were he to press it to a Division. As the Hansard Society points out, clause 18 would give Ministers the power to “engage in conduct” relevant to the Northern Ireland protocol if they consider it—again this word—“appropriate” in connection with one or more of the purposes of the Bill. However, the Bill provides no elaboration on what type of activities that “conduct” could involve. Nor have the Government given a justification for why the additional power is needed. Indeed, the   former head of the Government Legal Service, Sir Jonathan Jones QC, someone who has said a lot about the legality of the Bill, described this as a
“do whatever you like power”.
Given that the Government can provide no assurances on what types of “conduct” the power will be restricted to and that we have no justification for why it is even needed, this is not something we can support. That is why we support amendment 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend. The Government are in no position to expand their powers to such a degree, particularly in areas so sensitive. Not only are they a gross overreach of power, but they are also disrespectful to the constitutional role of this House.
I turn to some of the amendments that have been tabled. Labour has been clear, since the Bill was first introduced, that the way to solve the problems before us is to negotiate, and to do so in good faith. We recognise that the operation of the protocol has created genuine tensions that need to be addressed, but that is best done by all sides listening to each other and acting in good faith, and with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement at the heart of those discussions. I contend that the Bill simply does not do that. It is not an act of good faith for Westminster to unilaterally impose a solution, not least across Northern Ireland, and nor, tragically, will the solution proposed achieve its ultimate objectives. Only an agreement which delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, and respects the wishes of those on all sides and all communities, will provide a long-term and sustainable solution to this problem. That is why we support amendment 49, which references the fourth point in the protocol and the importance of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its parts, if it were to be pressed to a Division. Unilateralism is not the way forward on matters of such sensitivity.
I do not want to detain the Committee further at this stage. We have many amendments to get through today. To conclude, Labour’s amendments will prevent handing the Government overreaching powers that they are simply not fit to hold. Our amendments will protect the much-valued scrutinising and functioning of this House, and give a voice in this hugely delicate and important process to the people of Northern Ireland.

Michael Ellis: Allow me, Dame Eleanor, for I think the penultimate time, to thank hon. Members who have spoken in Committee. I would like to turn to the clauses under discussion in this debate. With the leave of the Committee, I will deal with some of the amendments very briefly.
Clause 13 outlines the exclusions that seek to redress the feeling that there is a democratic deficit created by the arrangements for the implementation and enforcement of the protocol. The present role of the Court of Justice of the European Union clearly causes Unionists to feel less connected to, and part of, the United Kingdom. That was reflected in the September 2021 joint statement by all Unionist parties on the protocol. Clause 13 provides that any provision of the protocol that confers jurisdiction on the CJEU over arrangements in Northern Ireland is excluded provision. That means that CJEU decisions, including infractions, will no longer have effect in domestic law across the entire protocol.
I confirm to the Committee that the Bill does not disapply the withdrawal agreement’s arbitration process, which would be convened at the international level in the event of a dispute. It simply affirms that the arbitration provisions in the withdrawal agreement do not have effect in our domestic law, and that is normal for international treaties. It then helps to restore the UK Government’s sole oversight of arrangements on the ground in Northern Ireland, providing that the provisions relating to the powers and presence of EU representatives are excluded. Finally, via subsections (4) and (5), clause 13 allows for the establishment of new arrangements for co-operation with EU authorities to monitor the trade boundary regime, and enables us to implement robust data sharing on the operation of the trusted trader scheme and on all goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That will support assurance processes to uphold our commitment to protect both the UK internal market and the EU’s single market.
Clause 14 supports the coherent functioning of the Bill by fully insulating any excluded provision from being brought back into our domestic law as a result of obligations arising from other provisions of the protocol and withdrawal agreement. If needs be, regulations under subsection (4) can be used to make appropriate provision in connection with any provision of the protocol or withdrawal agreement to which this clause relates. The clause provides important clarity on the interaction between excluded provision and any wider provisions in the protocol or withdrawal agreement related to it.
Clause 18 provides a power for a Minister to engage in non-legislative conduct where they consider it appropriate in connection with one or more of the purposes in the Bill. The clause also clarifies the relationship between powers to make secondary legislation under the Bill and those arising by virtue of the royal prerogative. The clause will ensure that actions not requiring legislation, such as issuing guidance to industry or providing direction to officials, can be taken in a timely manner by a Minister of the Crown. It is not, as I think has been misconstrued in some quarters, an extraordinary power. It simply makes clear, as would normally be taken for granted, that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation.
Clause 20 allows for the proper functioning of  domestic court proceedings following the removal of the domestic effect of CJEU jurisdiction. That means that domestic courts would no longer be bound by CJEU principles or decisions when considering matters relating to the protocol. The clause provides a power to make related new provision. Regulations made under the power could, for example, provide for a procedure to refer questions of interpretation of EU law to the CJEU if a domestic court considered it necessary to conclude its proceedings.

Stephen Farry: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Ellis: If the hon. Member would not mind, I will give way to him when I come on to his amendment specifically. I would be very grateful if he would give me that indulgence.
Clause 20 is important to the functioning of the Bill to allow domestic courts to consider proceedings relating to the protocol without being subject to CJEU jurisdiction, in line with the general principles of the Bill.
I now move on to the amendments in order. Some, with the leave of the House, I can deal with very briefly. Amendments 38, 39, 42 and 43, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), would, as has previously been explained regarding similar amendments, in our view wrongly apply a necessity test for the use of such powers. Parliament has previously determined, for example in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, that “appropriateness” is the appropriate word. That is my response to that series of amendments.
Amendment 12 in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) would remove the power for Ministers to engage in conduct in relation to the protocol which is normally within the Executive’s competence but not otherwise authorised by the Bill. As I explained a short while ago, this provision simply makes it clear that, as would normally be taken for granted, Ministers of the Crown would be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties—for example providing instruction to civil servants or guidance to industry—in support of this legislation. It is not an extraordinary power, but rather it provides certainty that the Government can implement our proposals. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 48 from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) would be unworkable. It would require the Assembly—which is of course not sitting, which is part of the whole essence of this Bill—to pass a prohibitive number of votes to enable swift implementation of the solutions delivered by the Bill, so I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 49 also from the hon. Gentleman would require Ministers to have due regard for the principle that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be protected in all its parts. The hon. Member states this amendment is based on the fourth point in the preamble to the protocol which sets out the United Kingdom and the European Union’s affirmation of their commitment to do just that. The Government’s overriding commitment—I emphasise this as strongly as I can—is to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That commitment is absolute, but the balance within that agreement, and which was critical to its negotiation, must be maintained, and it is for that very reason that the Government have introduced this Bill. Although I welcome and endorse the sentiment underlying the amendment, it is, for the same reason, unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Amendment 46 from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) would require the Assembly to approve clause 20. That is inappropriate under the devolution settlements because it would prevent the Bill from making important changes that go to the heart of the current democratic deficit. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way now?

Stephen Farry: Yes, I am grateful to the Minister, and I assure him this is only a probing amendment and I will not be putting it to a vote. In terms of the Government’s position of removing the ultimate jurisdiction of the ECJ, do they recognise that in doing so they will in effect unpick Northern Ireland’s access to the single market for goods in that we would not be fully in line with the required EU law for that to take effect?

Michael Ellis: I do not accept that characterisation. This is very important to the whole community in Northern Ireland and it is very important that we have cross-community consensus in the working of these operations. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that in fact this Bill makes all the provision necessary for firms in Northern Ireland that wish to access the single market to be able to do so by opting for dual regulation? Dual regulation is what gives them access to the single market, not oversight by the ECJ.

Michael Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right about the dual regulatory regime, as the Committee discussed at some length yesterday; I agree with his contention.

Claire Hanna: Will the Minister please clarify? I am struggling to understand. He repeatedly refers to the need for cross-community consent. Does he understand and has he noted the letter from a majority of MLAs—[Interruption.] Does he acknowledge that all MLAs representing others and representing nationalists reject this Bill in the strongest possible terms, and can he outline how these recommendations and powers have cross-community consent if they are rejected by two of the three traditions in Northern Ireland?

Michael Ellis: As I think the hon. Lady knows, this cannot be about majoritarianism, and by the way I note a poll in December 2021 that indicated there was 78% agreement in Northern Ireland that the protocol needed to change. There is a requirement that there is cross-community consensus and—

Claire Hanna: And there is not cross-community consensus!

Michael Ellis: The hon. Lady is shouting from a sedentary position, but I think I have made the position clear. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) knows she cannot shout like that while she is sitting down. If she wishes to intervene again she can try to intervene; I will not have this shouting.

Michael Ellis: Thank you, Dame Eleanor.
I simply reiterate to the hon. Lady and the whole Committee that our overriding priority is preserving peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and I make no apology for repeating that. The situation as it stands is undermining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and it is undermining power-sharing, as proven by the very fact that we do not have an operating Northern Ireland Assembly—surely that is proof positive.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister share my bafflement at the intervention that he has just had to respond to? On the one hand, SDLP amendment 49 requires the Government to ensure
“the principle that the Belfast Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, should be protected in all its parts”,
yet at the same time we are being told that a majority in the Assembly—which does not include one Unionist: a key principle of the Belfast agreement—should override any of the views being expressed by Unionists on these Benches today.

Michael Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with his usual eloquence, and the citation he makes from the agreement is irrefutable; it is simply on the face of the document.

Colum Eastwood: Can the Minister point out the line, paragraph and page of the Good Friday agreement that he is quoting? This does not make any sense.

Michael Ellis: The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous in the best possible sense of that word; he is very familiar with the agreement and does not need me to cite the passages in question. I am sure all sides would agree that what is most important is the preservation of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement; that surely is irrefutable.
Amendment 13, tabled by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, would bind domestic courts into the existing CJEU reference procedure without any choice as to what the new arrangements are. In the Government’s view, that would not resolve the current democratic deficit.
I have given the position of Her Majesty’s Government on the amendments; I hope I have outlined that in sufficient detail. I therefore recommend that these clauses all stand part of the Bill.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am happy to follow the Minister. Reference has been made to the oversight of the European Court of Justice. Although our primary concern about the protocol is in respect of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we do have a concern about the role of the European Court of Justice in respect of oversight, where there is a dispute between the United Kingdom and the European Union on matters pertaining to the protocol. We believe it is unfair and unreasonable that the European Court of Justice should be the final arbiter on such matters.

Sammy Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in no other trade agreement would one side be able to adjudicate on whether the terms were to be accepted? However, in this case, the EU, which has skin in the game, would be the final arbiter in any dispute. That is totally unfair, totally unwarranted and totally unprecedented.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Indeed, and that speaks to the issue that I raised about the democratic deficit. The Government are endeavouring, through the Bill, to correct the flaws that were evident in the protocol. Although some in the House will point out that the Government signed up to the protocol, I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that the protocol is not working, that it is harmful to Northern Ireland and that changes need to be made. That is very important.
We believe that the democratic deficit needs to be addressed. The European Union has so far shown an unwillingness to introduce proposals that would meet the United Kingdom’s concerns in that regard. We do  not yet know whether there will be a change of heart, but in the absence of that, we are with the Government on this: we want a fair and reasonable system.
I repeat what I have said throughout the Committee: if we set aside the process of how we got here and examine the detail of the Government’s proposals as a framework to provide solutions to the problems, I believe that that framework is fair. It respects the integrity of the EU single market and its right to protect that market. However, for us, it also fundamentally recognises and respects the United Kingdom’s right to protect the integrity of and to regulate its internal market. The protocol prevents the Government from doing that for the whole United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is currently subject to regulations that are introduced by the EU in a manner over which we have no say.
Other Members have raised the fact that, at the moment, we do not have a fully functioning Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, yet I still do not see or hear an understanding from them of how that situation has arisen. It was with great reluctance that we took the decision to withdraw the First Minister back in February. It only happened after much delay; I stood on the green outside this building and was mocked by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) for not having followed through on the warning that I had given to withdraw the First Minister. He goaded us, saying that we had not followed through, and he sits on these Benches now and attacks us for taking the decision that we warned we would have to take if progress was not made towards addressing the issues related to the protocol.
I have also said, and reiterated during these debates, that as we make progress and as decisive action is taken by the Government in implementing this legislation, we will of course restore those political institutions, because we want them to work and function in the way that they were intended to. The hon. Members for Foyle and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) seemed to suggest from a sedentary position that the concept of power sharing and consensus was not a fundamental principle of the Belfast agreement. I have to differ from them on that: I believe that power sharing is at the heart of the Belfast agreement and in the principle that, in a divided society such as Northern Ireland, we cannot have one side with all the power and others excluded from power. Therefore, the concept of power sharing was embraced by the political parties in Northern Ireland and has been the basis on which those political institutions have operated. However, if power sharing is to work, it requires cross-community consensus.
I hear this new language from the SDLP, in particular, and also the Alliance party, who constantly talk about a “majority” of this and a “majority” of that. When Unionists had the majority, however, we were told that majority rule was anathema to the Alliance party and the SDLP—that we could not have a Unionist majority governing in Northern Ireland and there had to be cross-community consensus. However, when Unionists have concerns and issues and say that the cross-community consensus does not exist, our concerns are almost dismissed. Lip service is paid to them but, at every opportunity, there is opposition to reasonable change that would address Unionists’ concerns.
I have not heard from the likes of the SDLP what the solution is, beyond saying, “Let’s have negotiations with the EU”. But negotiations have been tried—there have  been 300 hours of negotiations. If the EU is prepared to come back to the table, change its negotiating mandate and act in good faith to get a solution that restores the cross-community consensus in Northern Ireland, bravo. But we see no inclination from the EU that it will do that.
So what do we do? Do we sit back, rub our hands, say, “It’s all too difficult” and wait for the day when, hopefully, the EU will come riding over the hill and rescue the political stability in Northern Ireland, rescue the Belfast agreement and rescue the concept of power sharing on the basis of a cross-community consensus? That has not happened, despite the EU’s bold claims that the protocol was designed to protect the Good Friday agreement and the political institutions. Those institutions are not functioning precisely because there is not a cross-community consensus in support of the protocol.
We need arrangements that reinstate and restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, which respects the outcome of article 1 of the agreement—that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom—as was recognised by the Irish Government and by the people of the Republic of Ireland, who voted in a referendum to change its constitution to recognise that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that the protocol has disrespected that constitutional settlement—that recognition that, for the time being, that is the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland. These issues are fundamentally important, and addressing the democratic deficit is important.

Colum Eastwood: Despite what the right hon. Member has been saying, I am very grateful to him for giving way. I know that he is a new convert to supporting the Good Friday agreement; in fact, he left the talks before they were concluded and then opposed the Good Friday agreement from the outset. That is fine—that is his right—but I wonder whether he can explain what version of Brexit can get this mythical cross-community consensus. The word “consensus”, in that sense, is not in the Good Friday agreement.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am not going to delve back into the history of Northern Ireland and leave the Committee bemused by an exchange on the Opposition Benches about the wherefores and merits of the Good Friday agreement in 1998. Yes, I did vote against the agreement in 1998, because I was opposed to what I regarded as deep flaws in it—not least its abject failure to address the needs of the innocent victims of the troubles, which were trampled over in the initial format of the agreement.
We are now trying to deal with the legacy not just of 30 years of violence, but of almost 25 years of an agreement that failed to address the issue in the first instance. I happen to believe that an important part of it that ought to have been dealt with in 1998 was not dealt with. I voted against the agreement on that basis, but, to be clear, at no stage did I ever oppose it on the basis that I opposed power sharing or that I believed that the only way forward was anything other than cross-community consensus. I have argued consistently as a Unionist that in a divided society, cross-community consensus has to be the way forward.
If I am a relatively recent convert to the agreement, my conversion—if it be that—was at St Andrews, when we got the changes that we needed so that its flaws could be addressed in a proper way. I would rather have experienced that than pedal in the opposite direction, saying, “We are moving towards majority rule. Those Unionists should get back in their corner; they may have their concerns, but we don’t want to hear about them.”

Colum Eastwood: What about the nationalists?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Yes, nationalist concerns need to be heard. I believe that the proposals that the Government have made address the concerns on both sides of the community. They address the need to protect the integrity of the European Union and the need to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Do you know what? In 1998, when the referendum was held on the Good Friday agreement, I voted against it—but on the day the result was announced, I stood outside at Balmoral, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast South, and declared that I accepted the result and would continue to work to change the agreement in a way that would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland. I would love to hear some day from SDLP Members that they finally accept the result of the largest democratic vote ever held in this United Kingdom, in which the people of this nation voted to leave the European Union. If they do not like what has happened, they should work to change the arrangements, as we are trying to do, rather than going back to 2016 and saying, “It’s all too difficult, it’s all terrible and therefore we can’t do anything about it.” The essence of democracy and the essence of good politics is that when you do not like something, you seek to change it.

Sammy Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend understand why nationalists will not accept this Bill? I cannot, because first, it will ensure their primary consideration, which is that there be no border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in terms of infrastructure. Secondly, it will address their concerns about the EU single market and ensure that their friends in the EU are protected, because goods going into the Republic will be examined as they come through Northern Ireland and companies in Northern Ireland will be required to abide by EU rules. Thirdly, courts in Northern Ireland will ensure through heavy sanctions that those who try to break the regulations will be punished. At the same time, the Bill will address Unionist concerns about the democratic deficit and ensure that goods can move freely into Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the UK and are not impeded in any way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that both sides can find something in the Bill?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that if we examine the proposals that the Government are making, we can see that they are fair and balanced. Despite the criticism that some have made that my party supported Brexit, at no stage in the process have we argued for a hard border on the island of Ireland. That is because we recognise the sensitivities of nationalists—it is precisely because as Unionists we are alive to and aware of the sensitivities of nationalists about having infrastructure on the border.  We have therefore sought to encourage a solution that respects and acknowledges their concerns, but it would be nice to have a bit of reciprocation from the nationalist side for a change, and a recognition of our concerns that a border in the Irish sea is offensive to us in the same way that a hard border on the island of Ireland is offensive to nationalists.
There are reasonable solutions that can ensure that we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and that we avoid a border in the Irish sea for goods moving within the United Kingdom. That is what this Bill does. That is precisely the outcome that it seeks to achieve, and in that respect it is, I think, balanced and fair.

Claire Hanna: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the case of all the Bills that preceded Britain’s exit from the European Union, he repeatedly voted against all the SDLP’s amendments to design in consent for the people of Northern Ireland? Where was this regard for the delicacies of the Good Friday agreement then?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am a democrat, and I accepted the outcome of the referendum. The British people had voted for Brexit, and I was not going to go along with the SDLP’s desire to hold the United Kingdom within the European Union and its proposals to keep us in the single market and the customs union, because I believed that that was contrary to what the British people had voted for. We therefore sought a solution.
At the time, in 2016, the former First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster—Dame Arlene Foster—wrote to the then Prime Minister and to the Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, making it clear that we needed a solution for Northern Ireland that took account of the distinct situation that pertained. We always recognised that arrangements in respect of Northern Ireland would take account of the sensitivities, but that should and must include the sensitivities and concerns of Unionists as well as nationalists. The solution provided for in the Bill, I believe, does that. It avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland, meeting the needs and the sensitivities of nationalists—of the constituents, in particular, of the hon. Member for Foyle: I acknowledge that many of them cross the border every day. I do not want impediments to be put in their way, but nor do I want impediments to be put in the way of my constituents, because trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is the lifeblood of their business, or of the consumers who live in my constituency, who simply want to buy British products from British companies in England, Scotland and Wales in the way that they have always enjoyed. For all those reasons, we will oppose the amendments. On balance, we believe that the Government’s proposed framework for the solutions that will flow in the form of regulations will protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.
Let me say this to the Government. I said it yesterday, I repeat it now, and we will come to it again later today. I know that the Government are currently consulting on what schemes they want to introduce to give effect to the Bill. It is important that there is consultation with business and with the political parties, that we have an input, and that the regulations are published as soon as possible so that we can all see that they do not pose the threat that some suggest they do, but instead offer us the solution that we need.

Theresa Villiers: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I oppose all the amendments and I support all the clauses standing part of the Bill, and the reason I do so is that, as we have heard repeatedly in the Chamber over the past days, the Northern Ireland protocol is causing unacceptable disruption and friction to the UK’s internal market. So radical is the impact of the protocol that we have seen the astonishing court ruling that, in voting through the protocol, this Parliament has partly suspended article 6 of the Acts of Union, one of its foundational statutes.
The EU’s insistence that the protocol requires full compliance with its regime for food and goods, which is applied in a one-size-fits-all way to countries around the world with far lower standards than ours, is simply unreasonable. Northern Ireland’s chief veterinary officer has estimated that if the current grace periods were removed, the number of food certificates required in Northern Ireland could soon almost match the total number processed in the entire EU, so 50% of all food-related EU certificates would be issued in relation to trade between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not just unreasonable; it is disproportionate, and arguably violates the fundamental international trade principle that border-related checks and controls need to be based on evidence and risk. The millions of checks being asked of us by the EU are in no way proportionate to the risk posed by GB food to the internal market of the European Union.
I noted the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), about what he perceived as some kind of democratic deficit in relation to the delegated legislation clauses, but I think the democratic deficit is far more serious, in that we are asking the people of Northern Ireland to live indefinitely under rules made in the European Union over which they and their elected representatives have no say whatsoever. That is not sustainable. I believe that the protocol arguably violates a core principle of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, because it has altered the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom without the consent of its people, and the one-off majoritarian vote every few years provided for by the protocol is just not sufficient to signify consent or to deliver political stability under the Good Friday agreement.
There can be no doubt that the protocol is the root cause not only of the practical disruption but of the political instability we have witnessed in Northern Ireland over the last few months. We cannot ignore the fact that every single one of the recently elected Unionist Assembly Members is against the protocol, and we cannot stand by while Northern Ireland is deprived of its power sharing agreement.

Claire Hanna: I genuinely share the right hon. Lady’s concern that all the elected Unionist Members oppose the protocol. It is not a desirable situation, which is why I poured six years of my life into preventing it at the time. Will she also acknowledge that every single other Member of the Assembly is against this Bill? Could she also please outline what aspects of societal disruption she is referring to and which products are not available in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: What I want to emphasise is that this Bill, once it is adopted, will deliver a system that will deal with the worst aspects of the friction and disruption that have been occurring. I also believe that it is important to build support for the Bill among all sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It is not in the interests of one side for other side to be alienated, as it is at present.
On the disruption being caused, the hon. Lady will be aware that it is partially mitigated at the moment by the grace periods that are in place. However, if we were to have the full panoply of EU rules on food, it would mean huge disruption to food being transferred between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it is essential that that is dealt with.

Jim Shannon: As everyone here knows, I represent my constituency of Strangford, but I have had representations from people in the South Down and Belfast West constituencies—people with different political aspirations and different religious viewpoints—who have asked me to make sure that this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill goes through because it will advantage them as well. So it is wrong for some people in this Chamber to adopt the attitude that this is all to the advantage of Unionists. It is more than that; all the people of Northern Ireland will gain the advantage if this Bill goes through. The right hon. Lady knows that—[Interruption]—unlike this yapping person on my right-hand side.

Theresa Villiers: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The reason I am supporting this Bill is that I believe it is in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. On the disruption, whether it is related to food, to the movement of pets and assistance dogs or to the soil and trees for planting as part of the Queen’s green canopy for the jubilee, these are disruptions that need to be addressed. What also needs to be addressed is the fact that, for the moment, Northern Ireland is subjected to laws made in Europe that it does not influence. For all those reasons, we need this Bill.
We cannot stand by while Northern Ireland is deprived of its power sharing Government and its devolved institutions because of the intransigent attitude of the European Union. We have heard from the Opposition spokesman that we should give more time for negotiations, but after 18 months of fruitless negotiations, the UK Government are right to act to remedy the worst of the practical problems caused by the protocol. We simply cannot carry on as we are, with the EU refusing to consider changes to its negotiating mandate to allow constructive talks that might resolve this issue.
The Bill will deliver pragmatic changes. It does not rip up the protocol or violate international law. It is in line with the protocol’s provisions that acknowledge its potential replacement by alternative arrangements. The protocol itself also recognises the primacy of the Good Friday agreement.
The system envisaged by the Bill will continue to safeguard the integrity of the EU single market without requiring new infrastructure or checks on the north-south  border. The creation of a “super green” channel should take a significant proportion of businesses and trade out of the protocol rules and compliance requirements. The Bill involves awkward compromises—I can accept that there will be some complexity with dual regulation, for example—but, let us face it, the same can be said of many laws, statutes and agreements that have been crucial in moving Northern Ireland forward and in safeguarding political stability in the 24 years since the Good Friday agreement. Of course, the door remains open to the European Union for a negotiated solution.
I close by commending the Foreign Secretary for introducing the Bill. I appreciate that it must have been immensely hard to get it through the machinery of government. No doubt the opposition in the other place will be ferocious, but I urge Ministers to stick with the Bill and to reject all the amendments before us today and those that will be tabled in their hundreds in their lordships’ House.
The stakes are high. It is not just the integrity and stability of our UK internal market that is at stake; it is the integrity and stability of our Union of four nations, the most successful political union in history. We jeopardise it at our peril and we must strive to ensure that Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy all the benefits that our Union offers.

Hilary Benn: Brexit undoubtably casts a heavy shadow over this debate. The point raised by the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on the democratic deficit is fairly made, although almost all the laws under which Northern Ireland is currently operating apply in the United Kingdom because of retained EU law. We must not get this entirely out of perspective because the Government chose, at the moment of withdrawal, to take EU law, move it across and stick it into UK legislation.

Sammy Wilson: Although the right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about EU law being retained for the rest of the United Kingdom, the vital difference is that the 82 pages of EU law contained in the protocol can be changed. Those changes apply to Northern Ireland, which is where the democratic deficit comes in.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I understand it entirely. I am talking about the situation as it is today. We should, therefore, be calm and reasonable in describing it.
Let us not forget that Northern Ireland is in a unique and favourable position compared with my constituents, precisely because it has access to both the market of the United Kingdom and the market of the European Union, which is why the polling indicates that businesses in Northern Ireland are very much in favour of having this privileged access, which other parts of the United Kingdom would greatly like.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet correctly made a point about the grace period. I do not understand why the Government did not just continue negotiating within the grace period. [Interruption.] The Minister for the Cabinet Office raises his eyebrows, but we have now been in the grace period for 18 months. I believe there is a problem with the checks that needs to be sorted out, as I have said on the record many times. In my conversations with European colleagues, I have  asked them to give me one example of how the integrity, safety and security of the single market has been compromised during the grace period. I have yet to receive an answer that a problem has actually arisen. The longer that goes on—perhaps that would have been the better approach for the Government—the more difficult it becomes for the EU to argue, “There is a fundamental difficulty here, which is why we need the whole panoply”. In the end, we are going to have to identify where the real risks are, and it is a relatively limited number of products. For the rest, particularly those goods that come to supermarkets and businesses in Northern Ireland that are not going anywhere else, a completely different solution could be required, although the Government are going to have a job on their hands to differentiate between the two.
I wish to speak in support of my amendment 12, which I hope might be voted on later, my amendment 13 and other amendments. I said last week that the Bill  as a whole was egregious, but clause 18(1), to which amendment 12 refers, is particularly so, because it states:
“A Minister of the Crown may engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol…if the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate”.
Basically, that is asking the House to legislate to give Ministers a power to do whatever they feel like, provided, in their opinion, that they think it is appropriate. We should listen to what Sir Jonathan Jones, the former Treasury Solicitor has had to say. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is on our Front Bench, mentioned, Sir Jonathan described this power as “extraordinary” and said it is a “do whatever you like” power, and no wonder. He also said in the article he wrote that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which led to his resignation, was bad enough, but this Bill is of a “wholly different order”. The Hansard Society has criticised the clause as not being subject to any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever, a criticism also made by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said:
“There is no definition of ‘conduct’ in the Bill itself. And there is nothing on the face of clause 18 that would prevent it from creating legally binding rules of general application.”
The Committee has previously criticised what it calls “disguised legislation,” by which it means
“instruments that are legislative in effect but often not subject to parliamentary oversight. Examples include guidance, determinations, arrangements, codes of practice and public notices. Clause 18 appears to allow all these things to be done, without any parliamentary procedure and in a way that is binding on the general public.”
So the question the Committee reasonably ask of the Minister is: what is this power and what do Ministers want it for? If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the clause was there merely to ensure that Ministers acted lawfully. What is this “conduct”? I ask because “engage in conduct” is, as the very helpful House of Commons Library note says,
“an unusual form of words for a statutory power.”
If we turn to the Bill’s explanatory notes for some enlightenment, we see that they state that clause 18(1) authorises “sub-legislative activity”. I have been in the House for a few years and I have never come across the concept of “sub-legislative activity”, whatever that is. The only example given in the explanatory notes is guidance. If the Government’s aim is to have a power to issue guidance on matters that they have not thought  of in the rest of the Bill or might think of at some point in the future, why does the clause not say, “The Minister will have the power to issue guidance”? It does not say that.
The other example the Minister gave left me even more perplexed. He said that this was to enable Ministers to issue instructions to civil servants. I was a Minister for nine years and I am not aware that I had to refer to a bit of legislation to give instructions to civil servants. I find the explanation wholly incredible, so it begs the question, and ought to beg the question for the Committee, whether one supports the principle of the Bill or not: what are the Government actually seeking to do? The Hansard Society, in its excellent note, makes it clear that that is not a narrow, obscure point. It is about ensuring that relevant legal provisions are drafted and treated consistently with other legislation. That is why the Hansard Society says:
“It also ensures that law-making does not circumvent the publication requirements that accompany, and the parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded to, primary and delegated legislation.”
In this case, the Government have given no explanation of why they believe that the powers are needed—apart from in relation to guidance and instructing civil servants, as we have just heard from the Minister—or why they believe that the powers are administrative rather than legislative. We need to hear from the Minister in his further contribution precisely what conduct is covered by cause 18(1). If he has a list of things in mind, will he please amend the Bill and put them in one by one so that we can see what they are? Secondly, will he give a categorical assurance that this provision will not permit legally binding obligations to be made as a result of that conduct? I raise that issue because the Government have not included clause 18(1) in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum, which is quite a significant point.
The clause is also indicative of the Government’s wider ambitions for, and the problems they are having with, the Bill. What they really want to do—the Minister has been absolutely open about this, to his great credit—is give themselves the power to do whatever they want in relation to the protocol. They want to be able to turn things on, turn them off and even turn them back on again whenever they feel like it. The fundamental problem, which has become evident over the last two days in Committee, is that, in fairness, Ministers are not entirely clear how some of their proposals—for example, a red customs lane and a green customs lane, or the dual regulatory regime, which we discussed at some length yesterday—will work in practice.
To take the example of the dual regulatory regime, when pressed on whether firms would be required to choose whether to follow EU or UK rules, the Minister said yesterday:
“clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice which regulatory route to follow when supplying goods to the market in Northern Ireland.”
However, later he said that clause 11 would
“allow a Minister to prescribe a single regulatory route for specific sectors, including a UK-only route with no application of EU law”—[Official Report, 19 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 877-79.]
In other words, businesses will be absolutely free to choose which system they want to use, unless and until the Government tell them which one they must use.
There is a confusion and a contradiction here. Why would Ministers want to take such a power if they are  confident that they have already worked out how a dual regulatory system will work? I do not think they are confident, because they do not know the answer. That is why so many of these Henry VIII powers are dotted throughout the Bill to give the Government the cover they require. For me that goes to the heart of why clause 18(1) is so objectionable and why it has been more widely criticised—apart from the Bill itself—than any other clause: the Government are trying to give themselves a sweeping power and a sweeping-up power. That is why this provision should be removed.
Let me turn briefly to my amendment 13. To be frank, I tabled it as a probing amendment because I was trying to understand the Government’s intention in allowing courts or tribunals in the UK to refer matters to the European Court. There is a bit of a contradiction between clause 20(2), which would prevent any UK court from referring a matter to the European Court, and clause 20(4), which would allow the Government to lay down in regulations a procedure under which courts could refer matters of interpretation of EU law to the European Court. To put it simply, if the Government are planning regulations to allow referrals—if they are not planning that, why does subsection (4) exist—why take a blanket power two subsections earlier to prevent any referrals whatever. The thinking does not seem clear.
Finally, given what I have said about the inappropriate use of the word “appropriate” in the Bill, I support the Opposition amendments, including new clauses 11 and 12, which would change the word “appropriate” to “necessary”. It seems to me that that would provide a better and a higher test for the exercise of ministerial discretion rather than the wide latitude allowed for in the Bill, which has rightly led to so much criticism from so many quarters.

David Simmonds: It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, as we discuss the Bill this afternoon.
I wish to say at the outset that I am speaking very much in support of the Government’s position on the Bill. It seems to me that we are dealing with a very complex, sensitive and fluid situation. I recognise that we have heard from everybody, from the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, right through to business organisations on the ground, all of whom recognise that there is no clear right or wrong to this situation at the moment, that we need to take forward this debate in a constructive way, and that we need to reach solutions that continue to support stability and the economic development of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
My attention was particularly drawn i to amendment 51, because of the points that it illustrates about referring disputed matters to the UK-EU Joint Committee, which is envisaged as part of the withdrawal agreement. That highlights that there remains a number of avenues still to explore, and it is with a sense of optimism that I look at those avenues. It is clear that the political situation that we face today, with the departure of one Prime Minister and a new Prime Minister to be elected, creates an opportunity for a reset in the relationships and the  negotiations that are taking place with the European Union on this issue. It was clear from the Dispatch Box when we first debated the Bill that it remained the Government’s preferred outcome that negotiations would result in changes that would address fully the issues of concern to all communities across Northern Ireland and, indeed, to those in my own constituency, whose businesses are involved in trade with the UK single market and the European single market. They are watching closely at what the outcomes of this will be because of the implications for other parts of our international trade in future.
The success that we have seen in Northern Ireland—in particular its ability to attract inward investment to drive that economic growth, to be the other region of the United Kingdom, outside of London, that is really bouncing back strongly—demonstrates the strength that there is in that economy and that community, and that it deserves the support and attention of this House to a greater degree perhaps than it has enjoyed in the past. The reality is that the protocol that we are discussing today is clearly our Prime Minister’s protocol, and we now have an opportunity to revisit those negotiations and find a new way forward.
I wish to address the point that was made strongly by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) in his eloquent contribution around the issue of a democratic deficit. There was one thing that piqued my attention. I have served as a member of the Committee of the Regions, alongside cross-party members from Northern Ireland, such as Jonathan Bell, Arnold Hatch, Stewart Dickson—all of whom were part of a process that was set up, as an EU member state, whereby the elected politicians from different parts of the European Union undertook a supervisory and oversight role on the operations of the European Union and the single market.
I spent a good part of my life in the Centre Borschette in Brussels—the conference centre in which the European Union undertook its negotiations and discussions about the development of the single market. I was there to talk about education. I was sharing that building with people who were there to deal with anything from veterinary products, to agriculture and to any other conceivable economic area of interest. It is clear that, now that we have left the European Union, we need to make sure that we are putting in place an equivalent degree of oversight so that everybody involved in the community has the opportunity to play an appropriate part in the development of these markets. It is clear from the eloquent contributions that we have heard from a number of Members on the Benches opposite that there remains a very live concern in Northern Ireland about whether the arrangements currently in place allow for that to happen.
Even with the results of the recent election, where I recognise that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for parties that were in favour of the protocol, it is clear that the essence of the peace and stability that supports that economic development is that everybody has the opportunity to be part of that discussion. We know that that has not always been done as fully as it should have been in the past, and as we debate the Bill in this Committee we have the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that that does happen in future.
It is also important to recognise, when we look at the important progress that Northern Ireland is making in its economic development and in bouncing back from the covid pandemic, that the European Union is making a reasonable point about the need to ensure that we carry out the relevant checks on goods and products that are traded in and out of that single market—a point that we have an equivalence for in our own United Kingdom single market. There is a lot of history to that. The United Kingdom has historically been notorious, as a member of the single market, for not carrying out the checks on goods and services that we were committed to carrying out as part of that single market.
Indeed, the United Kingdom was significantly fined for having failed to carry out those checks. I know that there are businesses in my constituency trading in goods and services that have seen their ability to do so undercut when the integrity of that single market has been damaged by our failure to carry out those checks. That failure means that we have, for example, counterfeit car parts being brought into the United Kingdom and traded—not only putting people’s lives and wellbeing at risk, but damaging the economic prospects of those businesses.
As we take those negotiations forward in a constructive spirit, while we are rightly determined to protect the integrity of the UK, it is absolutely right that we also recognise that the United Kingdom has not always been as good at this as we should have been. The constructive partnership with the European Union means that we must recognise that and show our commitment to ensuring that those checks and standards will be carried out in future in a way that we have not always done in the past. It may well be that the joint committee referred to in amendment 51 will play some role in ensuring that, as negotiations progress and those matters are taken to a lower level, there will be an opportunity to drive forward to reach agreements.
I will finish where I started. The opportunity of a change of leadership is that it creates some scope for a reset in the relationship that has been clearly described at the Dispatch Box as the Government’s preferred route for achieving a better outcome. I entirely support the Government in that objective. We have already heard intimations from some of our partners across the European Union that, regardless of what they think about the merits of any individual, that reset is the chance for a fresh start.
I hope the outcome will be that we reach that negotiation without any of the powers that have been referred to at the Dispatch Box and that are causing concern ever having to come into play, exactly as we saw with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The priority for this Committee, for Members and for my constituents whose trading interests are strongly affected by this Bill is that we ensure that we respect the complexity of the politics of Northern Ireland, to which we have often paid far too little attention in this House. We must support all our colleagues in achieving a deal that they can live with, one that will continue to support the stability and economic development of both the Republic of Ireland, our ally, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.

Claire Hanna: This afternoon’s amendments focus on the disapplication of the protocol and the extravagant powers that the Government hope to grant themselves. Our amendments, consistent with our amendments tabled  on other days—I think we are on day 712 of this Bill—seek to balance and, where necessary, curtail those powers, to ensure that Ministers have due regard for the views and the needs of all the people in Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.
Through amendment 49, we also propose to formalise the safeguarding of the Good Friday agreement. It is referenced just once in this Bill, where I believe it is being used as an amulet to defend against repudiation of an international treaty. We are told repeatedly, although it does not reflect the understanding of the agreement that many of us have, that this Bill is about protection of the Good Friday agreement, so it is difficult to see why codifying that is being so forcefully rejected. As a lifelong and committed follower of John Hume, I am always very pleased when his ideas get a new airing and a new audience. However, it is frustrating when the concepts and ideas he spent his life developing and persuading Northern Ireland to adopt—many people took a lot longer than others to finally adopt those views, while we all seemed to happily operate in this framework—are misrepresented and distorted, as they have been at some stages of this debate. John Hume argued and finally persuaded, through the Good Friday agreement, which has enormous consent in Northern Ireland and is sovereign in Northern Ireland, that consent should rest on the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. Crucially, he framed that within the architecture and the institutions of the three-stranded approach in the agreement, which explicitly saw Ireland’s and the UK’s joint membership of the EU as underpinning that, and underpinning the relationships east-west and north-south, regardless of Northern Ireland’s constitutional settlement.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: There is, though, a clear distinction between the principle of consent, which relates to the ultimate question of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, or constitutional change affecting our place in the United Kingdom, and the principle of consensus, which applies to the operation of the political institutions. My point throughout this debate has not focused primarily on the principle of consent, although that is important, but relates to power-sharing on the principle of consensus. Without Unionist support, there is not a consensus, and that is simply the reality.

Claire Hanna: I am glad the hon. Member brought up that point, because I am sure that all the Members in the Chamber have read the Good Friday agreement and will know that in the original 1998 document, the only—only—aspect that required parallel consent, other than the potential petitioning of motions, was the joint nomination of the First Ministers. Would Members like to hazard a guess as to which party disapplied that one use of parallel consent in the Good Friday agreement? It was the DUP, at St Andrews, that ruled it out. The principle of consent, as codified very clearly in the Good Friday agreement and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, is about the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and about the consent of the majority of the people. Those are the facts, and, as people are disappearing up their own contradictions to try to justify support for this damaging Bill, those remain the facts.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Lady. Parallel consent does not apply on only one issue. In strand 1 of the agreement,  the requirement for cross-community consensus applies to matters that are controversial, so the idea that consensus applies only on the constitutional issue is simply not true. The power-sharing institutions operate on the basis of consensus. If cross-community consensus was not required for power-sharing, then why on earth have we no power-sharing Executive fully functioning today in the absence of Unionist support? The facts speak for themselves: Unionists absent, no consensus, no power-sharing. For the hon. Lady to try to suggest that consensus is not required for power-sharing frankly leaves me bemused, because it is at the heart of the Belfast agreement.

Claire Hanna: This is the problem we had in the stop-start 25 years of devolution: an obsession with and an addiction to veto by the DUP, and others. Some of these points would have more coherence and would be less hypocritical if that party had not correctly—correctly—bemoaned Sinn Féin holding the institutions to ransom, which was undemocratic when it did it between 2017 and 2020. The Member was not slow in pointing that out, rightly, and his words now would have a little bit more credibility if that had not been the case. There is a difference between consent and consensus. Again, it would be a little bit more credible if he was not repeatedly ignoring the fact that a democratic majority of people in Northern Ireland oppose Brexit, particularly the hard form of Brexit that is being applied without any form of consent. I say respectfully that his words do not have credibility on this. In fact, Hume developed the notions of complementary consent, north and south, for any agreement produced by negotiations for future constitutional change in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement was mandated on that basis, and while I appreciate—I was a teenager at the time, so I do not recall the press conference—that the right hon. Member said on that day that he accepted the result of the referendum, it is a matter of record that his party spent many years doing everything they could to thwart its implementation.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: This debate is not about history, but at the time I was actually a member of the Ulster Unionist party, not the Democratic Unionist party—a small fact. As a member of the Ulster Unionist party at the time, even though I voted against the agreement, I said I accepted the democratic outcome. Subsequently, when I joined the Democratic Unionist party, I worked with my party to bring about the change required democratically to ensure that the flaws in the agreement were addressed. I am simply saying to the hon. Lady that that is what we are engaged in now in respect of the protocol. Let us get the change that works for everyone in Northern Ireland, rebuilds the consensus on a cross-community basis and gets us back to doing what we need to do for Northern Ireland.

Claire Hanna: I desperately hope with every fibre of my being that the position the right hon. Gentleman sets out in his final words is the one we reach at the end of this process. The people of Northern Ireland want more than anything in this world to not hear this situation being played out aggressively in a toxic fashion  day after day, as it has for the last six years, but they do not believe it will happen unilaterally through this Bill. Anybody who legitimately and thoroughly supports the Good Friday agreement and the teachings of John Hume will know that this Bill is a world of logic, decency and reality away from what he outlined about consensus and power sharing.
We have tabled amendment 49 to give an opportunity to protect fully and truly the Good Friday agreement with negotiated solutions. That is where we want to get to. Members should be fair and current about the context in Northern Ireland, because people at home do not recognise the Mad Max scenario being portrayed of people unable to access goods and services in Northern Ireland—it is just not reflective of the reality. Once again I say, as I have probably done every time I have spoken on this issue, that I fully understand the hurt of many Unionists. I have also spoken about the constitutional identity of many of us. I am Irish and I am Northern Irish, and I do not pay my taxes to the same state that my passport comes from—I understand that those are compromises, and it is frustrating when the impression is given that such compromises are for non-Unionists, but Unionists should never have to compromise on their lines of governance.
In terms of the actual material effect on people’s identity, I quoted yesterday words from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) that I agree with. He said clearly that customs checks do not alter the constitutional status of the UK, and I think he is correct, but it is also appropriate that people reflect on the reality of what is and is not happening with goods moving through, where there is not the full panoply of EU checks. The situation is evolving. We were not given the benefit of an implementation period—such was the rush from other parties to get Brexit done, they did not allow businesses a period in which to adapt—but as was always envisioned, the protocol is evolving and the EU has set out legally dropped checks that are available permanently for easement, so Members should be rational about that.
Members should also be rational about the impact of the European Court of Justice. If I understand it correctly, it applies to the sovereign parts of Cyprus in the absence of Brexit. Perhaps Ministers in their summing up could advise whether the constitutional status of those UK sovereign areas of Cyprus has changed due to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Consistent with those points, amendments 48 and 49 would try to apply the consensus and the trust of the Northern Ireland Assembly to some of the powers that will be exercised apparently for its benefit. That consent from the Assembly will better reflect the range of views across Northern Ireland’s diverse communities, as well as businesses, whose representative groups—Members and in particular Ministers should be honest about this—have all rejected this Bill and set out their grave reservations about it. It is important that those views be reflected, if only because Members have, shamefully, maligned some of those business representatives in the Chamber, and I do not believe that their accusations have been withdrawn.
When Ministers sum up, will they say whether they will table a report that gives qualitative and quantitative information on the feedback that the Government have received from businesses on the Bill? It is frustrating for  many that little pieces of feedback are being appropriated by some, while the vast majority of feedback—the representative feedback—is being distorted. I ask the Government to commit to publishing a report on the feedback—anonymised, where appropriate—that they have received, so that we can ensure that the voices of the economic actors in Northern Ireland are heard without distortion or impediment.
It is wrong to imply, as some did in debate yesterday, that Northern Ireland exporters will have a choice on regulations and standards. In fact, customers will have that choice; that is how these things work. The UK proposes a dual-regulation system on an open border. That will require customers—mostly other businesses—to make judgments and assumptions about the validity and standards of Northern Ireland produce. The Bill creates that serious reputational risk to businesses. I must repeat that the Bill’s powers, to the extent that they can be quantified—there are a lot of unanswered questions—are unwanted by a majority of Members of the Legislative Assembly, and by all the business organisations. Our amendment will help to ensure that those powers are appropriately moderated by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not want to hear the all-purpose excuse, “The Assembly isn’t sitting.” We are told, as part of the two-step that is going on between the Government and the Democratic Unionist party, that once the Bill passes, the Government will give democratic governance to the people of Northern Ireland, so that should not be an impediment. I ask the Government to accept that.

Stephen Farry: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I want to make a few points about the European Court of Justice and my amendment 46. It is important to recognise that the ECJ has not been a big issue in Northern Ireland to date. No business has ever expressed any concern to me about its jurisdiction. Indeed, it was a very minor issue in political debate in Northern Ireland until Lord Frost took it upon himself to escalate the issue in a speech that he made last October in Lisbon, I think. It was on the eve of the European Commission tabling proposals for breaking the deadlock on this issue; that shows how well the Government have handled some of the so-called negotiations. The European Court of Justice seems to be an obsession for hard-line Brexiteers in this Chamber and elsewhere, and for those who advocate what could be described as a purist and old-fashioned approach to sovereignty that denies entirely the realities of the modern, interdependent world.
It is important to focus on the distinction between dispute resolution mechanisms in a free trade agreement, and the situation regarding the protocol. Many people suggest that we should simply have an arbitration mechanism for the protocol, and deliberately conflate the two types of agreement. It is entirely appropriate to have an arbitration mechanism for the trade and co-operation agreement, which is a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is about two equals coming to the table and working out exactly how things will be taken forward. The position on Northern Ireland and the protocol is qualitatively different; we are talking about a region that continues to have direct access to the single market for goods, and is required to remain aligned with a body of European law, as is set out in annex 2 of the protocol. We will in a minute discuss the pros and cons of that,  and the justification for it, but that is the situation that pertains, and why there is a different arbitration mechanism for a free trade agreement.
If the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court is removed, that will jeopardise or destroy Northern Ireland’s ability to access the single market for goods. It is important that Members are fully aware of the implications of going down this particular road, because the two go hand in hand. Northern Ireland needs to remain in line with that law, and the European Court is part and parcel of how the situation works. Of course, if that were to happen, there would be massive implications for all businesses that operate on a north-south basis or that trade directly into the European Union. It is important that we do all we can to preserve that jurisdiction, while at the same time trying to fix the issues that pertain across the Irish sea. Through the Bill, a unilateral approach will be imposed on the European Union that probably will not address the issues across the Irish sea and at the same time will undermine Northern Ireland’s current dual-access opportunities.
I will go further and say this: we do not simply have to tolerate and put up with the situation. I maintain that being within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is actively in Northern Ireland’s interests, because there may well be situations that come to light over the years where—due to the complications around the protocol, and the distinctions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom—some businesses and places in the European Union do not accept goods from Northern Ireland, because they are confused about the overarching situation. In such situations, it is crucial that we have the European Court of Justice to enforce the rules and protect the rights of Northern Ireland businesses. If we are to change the jurisdiction, there is a real danger and risk that we throw away the opportunity and advantage that we have.
Last night, I had a conversation with a major export business in my constituency, whose representatives said that they were recently at a trade fair in Italy and people said to them, “Thank God you’re still part of the single market via the protocol, because we cannot do business readily with your counterparts in Great Britain, but because you’re part of the protocol we have that export opportunity.” Many hundreds of people are employed by that company. It is important to recognise that issue.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and important speech. In clause 20(4), the Government propose to allow cases to be referred to the European Court; they say they want the European Court to have nothing to do with any of this but are then taking a power to allow referrals. Does he, like me, think that that is because businesses in Northern Ireland that choose to operate under the dual regulatory system under EU rules may themselves, in the circumstances he has just described, want to go to the Court to demonstrate that they are abiding by the rules, and therefore ensure that the Republic or any other EU country cannot say, “We are not taking your goods”? That is in the interests of business in Northern Ireland, is it not?

Stephen Farry: Absolutely. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for reinforcing that point; there is a kernel of rationale as to why the provision is in the self-interest of Northern Ireland businesses. If the  Government even slightly recognise that—without, perhaps, wanting overly to acknowledge it—that is indeed welcome. I hope that the Minister will expand on that whenever he speaks.
I want to make some closing comments on the democratic deficit. Of course, the largest democratic deficit we currently face in Northern Ireland is the fact that we do not have an Assembly, which means that we cannot do any self-government, pass any laws or strike a devolved budget, and there is money building up through Barnett consequentials to address the cost of living that cannot be allocated to help struggling households. That is the big democratic deficit that the people of Northern Ireland are talking about at present, not the intricacies of European law.
That said, I recognise that there is an issue in relation to the evolution of EU law in annex 2, over which Northern Ireland currently has no direct say. I do not want to go back through history too much, but when we were part of the EU we had, through the good offices of the UK Government, a front-row seat at discussions around the evolution of EU law. Whether it was an update of EU law or the conclusion of a new law, the UK was very much part and parcel of that.
Now, however, outside the EU, we have a degree of democratic deficit. That has been recognised. The EU has set out four strands for future negotiations—medicines, sanitary and phytosanitary issues, the customs issue and governance—so there is an open door to discuss those issues. It will not be easy to find a solution, because Northern Ireland is not a member state of the EU and will not be treated as such in terms of any future outworkings; but we have to think as creatively as we can, to give Northern Ireland political voices and as direct seats as possible at the table.
The EU proposals do not currently go far enough in that regard. They are essentially around what we would term some form of super-consultation or targeted consultation with Northern Ireland businesses, which is fine as far as it goes; but we need some means by which the directly elected political representatives in Northern Ireland can sit down with their EU counterparts and discuss the evolution of EU law. I stress that those conversations are perhaps most important in the initiation phase of the law, rather than further down the line. It is about simply saying, “That type of proposal will have a differential impact on Northern Ireland,” and it is important that we flag that early.
I recently had a discussion with representatives of the Norwegian Government. They are, of course, part of the European economic area and do not have a direct seat at the table in terms of initiation. They take a very strategic approach to trying to engage in terms of the way in which EU law is developed, and they pick the most important issues. For Northern Ireland we will have a broad range of interests for our interaction with the EU. It will be a challenge, but it is one that we must overcome.
The final point that I want to make is about the debate that has emerged around cross-community consent. It is probably a better discussion for the next stage of the Bill, but unfortunately a lot of our discussions  overlap. Absolutely it is important that we have a cross-community consensus in Northern Ireland on these issues. However, we are currently seeing that a minority in Northern Ireland has pulled down the institutions and we do not have power sharing at all. To me, power sharing is about power sharing happening; it is not about blocking it from happening.
In turn, however, the Government constructed the entirety of their narrative around the Bill by saying, “Unionists have withdrawn from the institutions; therefore we must proceed with this legislation.” In that regard they are addressing only a minority. We have moved from a situation of asking whether the Government are doing something to appease the majority in Northern Ireland, or to appease a cross-community situation, to one where the Government are directly, openly and deliberately only addressing the concerns of a minority—and that includes a minority of political representatives and of business representatives.
It is worth stressing time and again that a majority of the MLAs and of the voters in Northern Ireland are at least pragmatic around the protocol, and that applies to the vast majority of businesses. Of course people recognise that there must be some degree of modification to the protocol to address the genuine concerns, but I have deep reservations if the Government twist that type of situation to say that there is justification for the Bill. We see opinion polls saying that 68% or 70% of people want to see the protocol modified or read that virtually all political parties recognise that there are changes, but that is a million miles away from any notion of majority support in Northern Ireland for this legislation. I fear that Parliament is proceeding on a false pretence to pass very dangerous and destructive legislation.

Nigel Evans: I am now going to call Jim Shannon as the last contributor on this group, and then we will have two brief contributions from the Front Bench. We anticipate that two Divisions will follow.

Jim Shannon: I am very pleased to be called to speak, Mr Evans. The Minister referred to the democratic deficit and clause 13, and that is what I want to focus on. I want to focus on the effect it has on my constituents in Strangford. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her significant contribution, too.
I have informed the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) that I intend to refer to some remarks that were made yesterday. Yesterday, I listened to him as he told hon. Members in the Chamber what conversations took place—he seemed to know better than I did—between me and Lakeland Dairies. To go on the record, let me be quite clear: I have been assured not that Lakeland Dairies is for or against the protocol; rather that it looks at the issue of the protocol and simply wants to know how we intend to deal with it in this place, so it has the information to move forward.
I refuse to allow others in this place to misrepresent me and my relationship with one of the largest employers in my constituency of Strangford. It is also noteworthy that meetings took place on a regular basis between myself and Lakeland Dairies staff, because they understand that I am up to the case and up to the job of helping them. I have had meetings with Lakeland Dairies directors,  the Minister here and Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were quite clear where they are on those issues. So that is where we are, on the record.
I want to see a way that works for Lakeland Dairies, but also for the seed farmers in my constituency, for the small business person, for the dog owner and for the pharmacist. Lakeland Dairies is not against that either. It has stated an opinion on how its business is currently operating and wants to know how to continue to grow its incredible global enterprise. That should not be twisted by any Member, whether it be the hon. Member for North Down or any other Member.

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is perhaps useful to distinguish between what are two separate conversations. One is a business saying that, on how the protocol is addressed, it is pragmatic, open-minded or indeed that it does not take a position in that respect. Yesterday, we were having a very good separate discussion on dual regulation. I was articulating the views expressed quite openly by the Dairy Council. It is worth making clear that the authoritative information I have is that Lakeland Dairies is entirely in agreement with the stated public position of the Dairy Council.

Jim Shannon: For the record again, I repeat, and do so with authority: Lakeland Dairies has told me that whatever legislation is in place, if it assists the Bill to go through it will work with that, north and south, to make it happen—and that is the important point.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to read off a bit of paper and say this group supports this and that groups supports that, but let me tell him something. He reads it off a bit of paper. The difference between him and me is that I live this every day. When it comes to knowing the difference between a field of barley and a field of wheat, do you know something? I know it because I live it. When it comes to knowing the difference between a cauliflower and a cabbage, I know it—I don’t read it on a bit of paper. When it comes to knowing the difference between a Friesian cow and a Dexter cow, I know the difference. You know why? Because I live it. The hon. Member just reads it on a bit of paper.
If you want to know the difference, Mr Evans, between a John Deere tractor and a Ford tractor, I know it because I live it every day. I do not read it off a bit of paper. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he can read it off a bit of paper and know nothing about it, but you can live it and know everything about it. That is the difference—

Stephen Farry: I’ve milked the cow!

Jim Shannon: Well, have you brought your wellies? He wants to go and buy himself a pair of wellies. Before he goes on to the farmer’s field, he’d better ask for the farmer for his permission.
I am quite concerned about how we are, so let me be rightly understood in the Committee today. The protocol can undoubtedly work for some—I have never said that it does not—but the fact of the matter is that the majority of individuals who have approached me in my constituency have told me that it does not work for them and their businesses.
If the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) was here, I could ream off to her, if she had the time and the patience to listen to me, perhaps 100 businesses in my constituency that are impacted by it. They have told me that it does not work for them or their businesses. I believe that to be replicated in other constituencies. In my intervention on the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I referred to businesses in South Down and West Belfast. I mentioned another one yesterday. Again, the hon. Member for North Down ignored it as if it did not matter, but it matters to me because a constituent of mine is involved.
Sam McChesney, who was on “Countryfile” on Sunday night, said that the protocol as it is at this moment impacts greatly on him, and on his cattle and his sheep. He cannot take his cattle across to the markets in Carlisle and the rest of north England or in Scotland without a financial equation being involved. Just for the record, he happens to be a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, as am I—I declare that as an interest. The hon. Member for North Down can read things off a bit of paper and hold up some names, but he does not know it because he has not lived it, unlike we who understand the agricultural business and who speak to the farmers.
I spoke to farmers on the 12th day; they happened to be in my lodge, Kircubbin LOL 1900—true blues they are, just for the record. They were telling me their thoughts on the Northern Ireland protocol and why they want it changed. When we live with them, understand them, socialise with them, and are members of a lodge with them, then when they tell us what their problems are on the farm, we know it because we live it—we don’t read it off a bit of paper. That is the issue for me; I just want to put it on the record.
I also have concerns about the 300 hours spent by the EU not to find a solution—if only that were the case—but just to be obstinate and awkward, and never at any stage to have it in mind to deal with this.
I want to ask the Minister some questions because yesterday I met people involved in the pharmaceutical business; I will be happy if he can come back to me at a later stage with answers. Should the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill pass, can the Government confirm that the regulation of all medicines, health technologies and vaccines in Northern Ireland will fully and exclusively fall under the remit of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency as the primary assessor and regulator, and no longer under the European Medicines Agency, as is currently the case? I want to make sure that what I am looking for and what they asked me to ask about is in place. They also seek confirmation that in such an eventuality all pharmacovigilance reporting for drugs, medicines and vaccines will thus transfer fully and exclusively to the UK MHRA.
Similarly, can the Government confirm that should the Bill become law the testing and batch release of relevant health technologies and vaccines will fully and exclusively fall under the UK National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, and that the European official medicine control laboratories network will no longer have any responsibility for Northern Ireland? Can it subsequently be confirmed that the requirements under the falsified medicines directive, which includes products having to be serialised and barcoded for  decommissioning, will also no longer be required for Northern Ireland, as is already the case for the rest of the UK?
Importantly, pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies are asking for the same thing that the agricultural representative bodies that I referred to earlier are looking for: an explanation of the transitional arrangements and preparations that have been made and an account of what guidance will be issued to urgently bring clarity. Most businesses understand the nature of this Bill, but they need to know that they will have useful information from day one and not be left uncertain, as they have been in recent days.
Certainty is the order of the day: certainty that Northern Ireland can trade with her biggest market; certainty that Northern Ireland citizens can access the same medicines as the rest of the United Kingdom; certainty that farmers can get seed potatoes from, or sell their beef to, their biggest market, the UK mainland; certainty that people can take their dog on a staycation trip to Scotland without a costly pet passport; certainty that they can see their Amazon order delivered without a message telling them the seller will not post outside the United Kingdom because they think Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom; certainty that they can order dog biscuits, frames or plastic flowers from their supplier without needing to fill out paperwork for each colour of each flower, which shows how absurd the EU is and why this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill needs to be law, giving us in Northern Ireland the same opportunities as the rest of the United Kingdom; certainty that our Chancellor and Government in this House can progress state aids which are currently being withheld from the people in Northern Ireland struggling with the price of daily living; certainty that the Unionist voice in Northern Ireland in terms of the upholding of the Belfast agreement is on equal footing with the nationalist voice, facilitated in this House by the SDLP and Alliance party pan-nationalist front, which is aided, disappointingly, by some on the Labour Benches—there are some that do not, but there are some that do; and certainty that, unless the people of the Province determine otherwise by a democratic specific vote, we still have the right to call ourselves as British as Finchley, as Margaret Thatcher once famously said.
This Bill is not perfect, but it starts a journey back to certainty that every single person in Northern Ireland deserves. I ask that we do the right thing.
I will refer briefly to clause 18 and the amendments tabled by SDLP and Alliance party Members, including amendments 46, 48 and 49. Despite the fact that all those Members have sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly and that they are intelligent and thoughtful individuals, there seems to be a grave misunderstanding about the role of this House in legislating through the Bill. It is not for the Northern Ireland Assembly to circumnavigate the decisions of the Minister as they pertain to individual protocol issues. Those Members should well understand the role of this House in rectifying the complete override of this House that was caused by accepting the role of a foreign power in Northern Ireland—namely, the EU: that insatiable giant that soaks everything up and takes all the goodness away. Its power was abused to punish the temerity of the British people for seeking to withdraw  from Europe. We wanted to withdraw from Europe, and the Bill would give us the same authority and make me as British as Members on the Government Benches.
This United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted to leave. The EU abused that. Hon. Members have been unsuccessful thus far with their copious wrecking amendments. I trust that today’s latest attempt to remove authority from this place and devolve the power to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as another attempt to bypass Brexit, will suffer the same fate. We will oppose all the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for North Down, for Belfast South and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood).
I am anxious to get the right thing done in this place and to allow our capable MLAs to get back to their seats and do their day-to-day job by legislating and providing the accountability that is missing. These matters are solely the responsibility of this House. Customs, goods regulation, VAT, state aid, rules on agrifood and our very legal standing as UK citizens are being circumnavigated by the ECJ. All those are part of the package deal of being a member of the UK and ensure that Northern Ireland gets more than its fair share as a member of the UK. That power must lie here—not in Brussels, but with all 650 Members of this House and with the people of Northern Ireland through their MPs. That is who should be able to make these changes. It should not be down to some faceless bureaucrat in the EU who sits in a warm office, never sees the sunlight, looks across at us here and makes a decision about what we are going to do. My goodness, let us put that to bed—put it in the bin—tonight.
The amendments are not a serious attempt to add a layer of security. They are wrecking amendments to remove power from this place, and that should not be accepted. Members are content to receive the Barnett consequentials of Treasury funds—I am talking about Members from all the parties: if they are given the money, they will grab it. We will take it because it is ours, but we in this place should have responsibility for legislating and the rule of law.
In conclusion, I oppose the amendments. I oppose the rationale behind them by the pan-nationalist front of the SDLP, the Alliance party and some Labour party Members here. The Bill must be passed. The time for Northern Ireland to pay the price has come to an end. Members should do what they constantly ask us to do: accept the will of the people and work in this place get the best for their individual constituencies and our wee nation in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Stephen Farry: On a point of order, Mr Evans. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the use of the term “pan-nationalist front”? I appreciate that this is a heated debate, but I understand that there have been multiple pieces of guidance on the use of temperate language. The use of the term “pan-nationalist front” has led to people being put under threat of their lives. It is a dangerous concept that implies that both my party and the SDLP are somehow in league with other nefarious forces who are trying to do certain things to people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like me to refer to the “pan-Unionist or loyalist front” for exactly the same reason.

Nigel Evans: Clearly, Mr Speaker asked people today to use temperate language, with reference to “Erskine May”, and that stands not just for Prime Minister’s Question Time but for all debates. I know that this is an emotional, sensitive Bill, but people must be very careful with the language that they use at all times.

Stephen Doughty: This has been a very wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, albeit with passion at various points. The question of a democratic deficit is one of the key issues that we have discussed. I recognise the concerns of Unionist colleagues in the Chamber, but I find it odd that the Government are pursuing a Bill with parts that remove powers from this place and the Northern Ireland Assembly and give them to Ministers here. It strikes me that that is the real democratic deficit that we are dealing with.
I hope that the other place will look at these matters in great detail in the weeks to come. I indicate our support for amendments 12 and 49, if those are put to a separate decision, but I will withdraw amendment 38.

Michael Ellis: I thank hon. Members, who have all spoken passionately. I will try very briefly to address some of their points.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) asked about the impact of CJEU provision on Northern Ireland access to the EU single market. When he raised the point, I reiterated the importance of cross-community consent; I should also reassure him and the Committee that we want and intend to retain elements of the protocol that are working and preserve north-south trade and co-operation. As the Prime Minister has said, we want to fix it, not nix it. The Bill just makes targeted changes to address key concerns and restore balance.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some technical questions about pharmaceuticals; I will write to him about them.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) referred to clause 18, which I assure him is genuinely less exciting than some might think. Normally, as he knows, the lawfulness of Ministers’ non-legislative actions can be taken for granted or implied. The Bill is slightly unusual in that it clarifies how new domestic obligations replace prior domestic obligations that stem from international obligations. Those international obligations are currently implemented automatically by section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That conduit pipe currently constrains—and could cause confusion in future as to —how Ministers can act in support of the Bill. Clause 18 will remove that potential confusion.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) juxtaposed Northern Ireland with Cyprus. I do not need to say to anyone on the Committee, particularly anyone from anywhere on the island of Ireland, that the history and geography of Northern Ireland is vastly different from that of Cyprus, so it is clear that different issues might arise from the remit of the CJEU. On that note, I recommend that the clauses stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Doughty: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 12, in clause18, page10, line9, leave out subsection (1).—(Hilary Benn.)
This amendment would remove the Minister‘s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 277.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: 49, in clause18,page10,line15,at end insert—
‘(3) Each Minister of the Crown must have due regard for the principle that the Belfast Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, should be protected in all its parts.”—(Colum Eastwood.)
This amendment is based on the fourth point in the Preamble to Northern Ireland Protocol.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 196, Noes 278.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clauses 18 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - New Agreements Amending or Replacing the Northern Ireland Protocol

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 21 stand part.
Amendment 50, in clause 22, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act unless a Legislative Consent Motion approving a draft of the regulations has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by this Act to make regulations unless and until the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to said regulations has been obtained.
Amendment 51, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act before a Minister of the Crown has presented a draft of the regulations to the UK-EU Joint Committee for discussion and has laid a full report setting out the details of those discussions before each House of Parliament and provided a copy to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by this Act to make regulations unless and until said regulations have been presented by a Minister to the UK-EU Joint Committee for a discussion and a report detailing those discussions had been laid before each House of Parliament and a copy provided to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 55, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act in contravention of views agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council on EU matters, including those regarding future policies, legislative proposals and programmes under consideration in the EU framework as provided for in Paragraph 17 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement.”
Amendment 53, page 12, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) A Minister may not exercise the power to make regulations under subsection (6) with respect to a devolved authority in Northern Ireland unless the exercise of any power by that devolved authority is approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly—
(a) on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive,
(b) following a resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly,
or both.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by subsection (6) without the agreement of the First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland acting jointly has been. The First Minister and deputy First Minister may be acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive and/or following a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 22 stand part.
Amendment 19, in clause 23, page 12, line 25, leave out from “to” to “unless” in line 26 and insert “draft affirmative procedure”.
This probing amendment would apply “draft affirmative” procedure in place of regulations being subject to annulment.
Amendment 20, page 12, line 33, leave out “draft affirmative procedure” and insert
“super-affirmative procedure (see section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions))”.
This probing amendment would replace draft affirmative procedure with super-affirmative procedure (see NC6).
Amendment 21, page 12, line 33, leave out from “procedure” to the end of line 37.
This probing amendment would prevent Henry VIII powers (amending Acts of Parliament by regulations) being made using the “made affirmative” procedure.
Amendment 22, page 12, line 38, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
This probing amendment would remove the “made affirmative” procedure.
Clauses 23 and 25 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause26,page15,line41,leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
“(2A) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(2C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2B) may not appoint a day for the commencement of any section unless—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons to the effect that a section or sections be commenced on or after a day specified in the motion (‘the specified day’),
(b) the motion has been approved by a resolution of that House,
(c) a motion to the effect that the House of Lords takes note of the specified day (or the day which is proposed to be the specified day) has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown, and
(d) the day appointed by the regulations is the same as or is after the specified day.
(2D) Regulations under subsection (2B) may—
(a) appoint different days for different purposes;
(b) make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.”
The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 1 to clause 1, is to require parliamentary approval for bringing into force any provisions of this Act.
Amendment 33, page15,line42,after “section” insert
“, section [consistency with international law]”.
This consequential amendment would bring NC11 into force on the day the Act is passed.
Amendment 3, page 15, line 44, at beginning insert
“Provided that the Northern Ireland Assembly has first passed a resolution indicating support for this Act,”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 4, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 4, page15,line45,at end insert—
“(3A) A motion for a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly referred to in subsection (3) must be tabled by either—
(a) the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly, or
(b) any Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 3, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 47, page 15, line 45, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, except that regulations under subsection (2) relating to tax or customs matters may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment would make all the commencement regulations subject to parliamentary approval.
Clause 26 stand part.
New clause 6—Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act the ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’ in relation to the making of regulations subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as follows.
(2) The Minister of the Crown must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister of the Crown wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a); and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Minister of the Crown may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if the regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.
(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (5) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister of the Crown wishes to make regulations order consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Minister of the Crown lay before Parliament—
(a) revised draft regulations; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(8) The Minister of the Crown may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (7) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations if the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (7) and before the revised draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.
(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (9) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in that House under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations if the regulations contain no material changes to the provisions of the draft regulations.
(12) In this section the ‘60-day period’ means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament under section 23 of this Act.”
This new clause sets out the bi-cameral super-affirmative procedure regulations under the Act, except in relation to tax and customs matters.
New clause 11—Consistency with international law—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must not make regulations under this Act unless both the conditions in subsections (2) and (5) have been satisfied.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a consistency report from a qualified person in relation to the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol that are, in consequence of the regulations, to become excluded provision (‘the provisions at issue’).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a ‘consistency report’ is a report as to whether, in the opinion of the qualified person, it is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom for the provisions at issue to become excluded provision, and which—
(a) sets out the reasons for its conclusions;
(b) sets out the steps taken by the qualified person to obtain the views of persons appearing to the qualified person to have appropriate expertise in questions of international law; and
(c) attaches, or contains references to a publicly available version of, all materials considered by the qualified person in the course of preparing the report.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) a ‘qualified person’ is a judge or former judge of—
(a) the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom;
(b) the Court of Appeal of England and Wales;
(c) the Inner House of the Court of Session; or
(d) the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland.
(5) The condition in this subsection is that—
(a) the House of Commons has approved a resolution to take note of the consistency report on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the consistency report has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(i) the House of Lords has approved a resolution to take note of the report, or
(ii) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).”
This new clause would prevent any clause of the Bill (or regulations made under it) that create ‘excluded provision’ from coming into force until (a) an authoritative and independent legal expert presents a report to parliament as to whether it is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, and (b) the House of Commons has passed a motion noting that report, and the House of Lords has debated that report.
New clause 12—Adjudications of matters pertaining to international law—
“No later than two weeks after any finding by any international court, tribunal or arbitration panel that any provision of this Act, or any action taken by a Minister in exercise of powers granted by this Act, is inconsistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown must—
(a) report to each House of Parliament setting out the extent to which the relevant court, tribunal or arbitration panel has found that any provision of, or any exercise of power under, this Act is inconsistent with the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom; and
(b) set out what steps Ministers propose take in order to bring the United Kingdom into compliance with those international obligations.”
This new clause would provide that, if an international court, tribunal or arbitration panel found as a matter of fact that any actions taken by the government under the Bill were inconsistent with the UK’s international legal obligations, the Minister must report this finding to the House, and set out what steps the government will take to ensure the UK is in compliance with its international obligations.
New clause 16—Impact assessment—
“Within six months of a Minister of the Crown exercising any power conferred by this Act to make regulations, a Minister of the Crown must publish a full impact assessment of the effect of the regulations on businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.”
This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown who has exercised any power conferred by this Act to make regulations to publish a full impact assessment of the effect of said regulations on businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland within six months.
New clause 17—Consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the powers to make regulations conferred by this Act before a Legislative Consent Motion approving a draft of the regulations has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(2) A Minister of the Crown must, at the end of the relevant period, seek a Legislative Consent Motion approving the continued application of regulations made under the powers conferred by this Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the ‘relevant period’ is—
(a) the period ending four years after the powers are exercised; or
(b) the period ending eight years after the powers are exercised where the original Legislative Consent Motion was approved by—
(i) the support of a majority of Members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of Unionists,
(ii) the support of 60 per cent of Members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists, or
(iii) the support of two thirds of Members.”
This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly in order to exercise the power to make regulations conferred by this Act. It would also require a Minister of the Crown to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the continued application of the said regulations within the relevant period. The relevant period would be four years unless the vote passes with a majority in any of the ways described in Clause 3(b), in which case the relevant period is eight years.
New clause 19—Expiry—
“(1) The powers conferred by this Act upon a Minister of the Crown will expire if the Northern Ireland Assembly passes a resolution pursuant to Article 18 of the Northern Ireland Protocol (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland).
(2) A resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly under subsection (1) can only pass with one or more of the following measures of representational support—
(a) the support of a majority of Members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of Unionists,
(b) the support of 60 per cent of Members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists, or
(c) the support of two thirds of Members.”
This new clause provides a sunset clause whereby the powers expire if the Northern Ireland Assembly does not vote to approve the continued application of the Northern Protocol in 2024 in the vote required by Article 18 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Michael Ellis: Let me, for the last time, thank hon. Members who have spoken in the previous Committee stage debates. I remind hon. Members that, although the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and this legislation will fix those practical problems.
Let me turn to the clauses under scrutiny this afternoon. Clause 19 gives powers to Ministers to implement a new agreement with the European Union as soon as one can be reached. A negotiated agreement with the EU remains the preferred outcome of this Government and this clause demonstrates that very commitment.
Clause 21 allows for preparatory spending undertaken to support the aims of the Bill to be made proper in the eyes of this place. This ensures that the Government can get on with delivering the new regime as soon as possible for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland.
Clause 22 sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in the Bill. This will ensure that the powers have the appropriate scope to implement the aims of the Bill, including setting out that regulations made under the Bill can make any provision that can be made by an Act of Parliament.
Regulations under this Bill may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which feature at the border either physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls that did not exist before exit day. I know that some Members are concerned about the possibility of border checks on the island of Ireland. This is the clearest possible way to show that this Government will not do that.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Further to that point, will the Minister also assure us that, consistent with clause 1, regulations brought forward as a result of this Bill will not harm the integrity of the United Kingdom and will respect Northern Ireland’s place within the Union?

Michael Ellis: Yes, indeed.
Subsection (6) provides that a Minister can facilitate other powers under this Bill to be exercisable exclusively, concurrently or jointly with devolved Administrations to implement the aims of the Bill, and that is our intention where this is possible and appropriate.
Clause 23 sets out the process and parliamentary procedure for regulations made under the Bill, except for those in relation to tax, or customs, or commencement, which have been dealt with in other clauses by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Clause 23 will ensure that the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny is in place for the different arrangements that will be necessary for the functioning of the new regime.
I will now move on to clause 25, which sets out the definition of relevant terms in the Bill, including by cross reference to their definition in other pieces of legislation. This is a normal and regular feature of all legislation. Clause 26 makes a number of final provisions in the Bill relating to extent and commencement, which are a normal part of all legislation. That clause is vital to ensure the smooth commencement of the new regime and to give business certainty.
Moving briefly to amendments 50 and 53 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). This would require approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly before the Bill could come into effect, but the Northern Ireland Assembly is not currently sitting and it is precisely because of this breakdown of institutions that we need this Bill, so I ask the hon. Member not to press the amendments.
Amendment 51 is in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle. This would require secondary legislation under the Bill to be presented to the Joint Committee. It is wholly inappropriate, in our view, to give scrutiny of UK domestic legislation to the EU in this way, as it would effectively give it a procedural veto, so I urge the hon. Member not to press that amendment.
Amendment 55 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle relates to the role of the North-South Ministerial Council. As the hon. Member knows, the North-South Ministerial Council includes Members of the Government of the Republic of Ireland and, as I said yesterday, it would be wholly inappropriate and a wholly inappropriate role for the Irish Government potentially to veto the Acts of a sovereign United Kingdom Parliament. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.
I will consider amendments 19 to 22 and new clause 6 together. They are in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury covered similar amendments to clause 24 of the Bill during the first day of debate. I reiterate her comments that the normal affirmative and negative procedures for statutory instruments provide effective scrutiny for the House. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendments.
I will touch on amendments 2 and 47 in a little more detail. They are tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and seek to require a parliamentary vote prior to the commencement of the substantive provisions of the Bill. As I have outlined to the House, the EU is not prepared to change the protocol to resolve the problems we face, and there is no prospect of seeing a power-sharing Government restored in Northern Ireland if we are unable to tackle those problems. We need to bring in solutions as soon as possible to help the businesses and consumers of Northern Ireland. Additional parliamentary procedures would risk delays to the regime’s coming into force and undermine the certainty and clarity that we are looking to provide through this very Bill.
Turning to amendment 47 specifically, it would also set a concerning precedent that, when the legislature has passed legislation, the Executive are not free to bring it into force. That freedom has been a long-standing rule and one that a Government of any party would not  wish to depart from. Furthermore, the amendment deviates from the previous one in that, rather than offering this House a single future debate on the issue at hand, it hands an effective veto on most of the Bill to the other place. I understand that some may find that an attractive outsourcing of opposition and a way around the conventions governing relations between the two Houses. However, the Executive , as my hon. Friend is well aware, is grounded in this honourable House and must be able to commence legislation they have agreed with Parliament. I urge him not to press his amendments.
I come now to amendment 33 and new clause 11, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). He is right to raise the important question of the relationship between this Bill and the United Kingdom’s obligations in international law. However, the consistency report that he proposes in his amendment, is unnecessary in our view. The Government have already been clear that the proposals of this Bill are consistent with international law, so I ask him not to press his amendment or the new clause.
I respectfully point out to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) regarding his amendments 3 and 4 that, while we need to see the restoration of the institutions as quickly as possible, it is exactly because of the breakdown of those institutions that this Bill was needed in the first place. That is why we cannot have a resolution of the Assembly before it comes into force. His amendments, by contrast, would allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate, even if that legislation relates to a reserved matter. That cannot be right; it would be wholly inappropriate under the devolution arrangements, and for that reason and the others I have mentioned I respectfully urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendments.
Moving on to new clause 12, and coming rapidly to a conclusion, this new clause is not necessary, as we have been clear that proceeding with this Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law and in support of our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Government have published a summary of our legal position alongside the Bill and would robustly defend our position in any relevant legal proceedings, should they occur. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Tottenham not to press this new clause.
New clause 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), would require an impact assessment to be published within six months of making regulations. We are currently engaging with businesses on the detail of regulations, but we need flexibility so that any regulations brought forward as the product of that engagement ensure that the new regime is as smooth and operable as possible.
Penultimately, new clause 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, would allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate on reserved matters. As I have said before, that is inappropriate under the devolution settlements.
New clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, would remove the powers provided by the Bill in the event of a Northern Ireland Assembly vote for continued application of the protocol. This would freeze in place a muddied set of arrangements in Northern Ireland and remove the ability of the UK Government to manage them, so the new clause should also be withdrawn.
This Bill provides a comprehensive and durable solution to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government remain open to a negotiated outcome with the EU on the protocol, but the urgency of the situation means that we cannot delay. We must act to preserve political stability in Northern Ireland and fulfil our duty to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I therefore recommend that these clauses stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Doughty: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie, for the second part of this debate. I will speak to new clause 12 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In the debate so far, we have focused, rightly, on the Henry VIII powers that the Government seek to gift themselves, but of course the problems with this Bill stretch far beyond the sweeping powers that Ministers are attempting to take. We seem to have forgotten at various points during its passage that this is a Foreign Office Bill because it relates to an international treaty and our international obligations. Indeed, there are many crucial issues at stake in that regard, because, as has been recognised by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, the Bill is incompatible with international law. It is not just those who have spoken up in the House who have said that. The Bingham Centre states unequivocally:
“The Bill is in clear breach of international law”
and that the breach is “without legal justification”. It, along with many others, has argued that the Government’s so-called defence of the Bill, grounded in the doctrine of necessity, is completely baseless. As the shadow Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) set out in great detail on Second Reading—many more have done so subsequently —each of the elements of the justification for the doctrine of necessity fall flat. This is a difficult situation that we all want to see resolved, but it is not a situation of grave and imminent peril, no more than the doctrine of necessity is an excuse for countries to abandon other responsibilities or dig themselves out of holes.
Similarly, the Government’s proposed actions are not the only way possible to resolve the issue. Although imperfect, there are clear mechanisms within the protocol for resolving disputes, meaning that the passage of this Bill is not the only way to resolve these challenges. Indeed, the Government themselves continue to maintain that they seek a resolution with the EU through negotiating, which is of course what Labour Members would want to see. Therefore, not only is this Bill a clear obstacle to these apparent efforts, but for as long as a solution is even remotely possible through negotiation, breaching the obligations of the protocol cannot be the only way to protect the UK’s interests. We have discussed at great length the fact that trust is at an all-time low with this Government, and this will do nothing to help to rebuild it. Unilateral action will not find us a way forward. Either the Bill is necessary because the Government are certain that negotiations will not lead to any kind of resolution or they still hope for a breakthrough with the EU, rendering the Bill unnecessary under the doctrine.
Given this confusion and the flawed justifications offered, we have tabled new clause 11—although we do not seek a Division at this stage—which would prevent  powers of the Bill from coming into effect until an authoritative and independent expert set out whether it is consistent with international law. The Government keep stating their position, but that is their interpretation. The problem is that we do not trust the Government on this, and neither do many others outside the House, while many have criticised the Bill from an independent perspective, so it is important that we understand all those views. An independent expert could make a determination on the legality of this issue before any clause unilaterally altering the protocol came into effect.
There was a time when having to table an amendment to this effect would have been unthinkable—a time when we would have legitimate political differences here in the Chamber but would never wilfully break with our international obligations as a first recourse. As I said, we do not intend to seek a Division on new clause 11, but I hope the other place will look carefully at the Government’s legal justifications to see whether they stack up. I do not believe they do and neither do many others.

John Redwood: Has the hon. Gentleman or his party ever once lobbied the EU in public or in private to shift its position to accommodate the very reasonable grievances and to deal with its illegalities under the protocol?

Stephen Doughty: I do not agree with the last part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but actually I sat around the table with EU ambassadors and, indeed, the EU ambassador to the UK to discuss these very issues just weeks ago, so I have sat down in private, and we have said so publicly on a number of occasions. The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured on that point.
It is not just Members on the Opposition Benches who have talked about the incompatibility with international law; Government Members have done so, too. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said:
“My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that…it is not.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 64.]
The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said:
“Respect for the rule of law runs deep in our Tory veins, and I find it extraordinary that a Tory Government need to be reminded of that.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 550.]
Beyond this House, the Taoiseach has said:
“Unilateral action to set aside a solemn agreement would be deeply damaging”,
and would
“mark a historic low-point signalling a disregard for essential principles of laws which are the foundation of international relations.”
Is that what global Britain has come to mean to this Government?
The Bill must comply with Britain’s international obligations, or we risk a collapse of our global reputation, discord with allies at a time of crisis in Europe and the risk of a raising of trade barriers during a cost of living crisis where billions are already struggling to make ends meet. That is why we want to see new clause 12 put to a separate vote today, because a piece of legislation that runs even the remotest of risks of breaching the UK’s international obligations should never pass this House, but we must be prepared if it does.
Under new clause 12, if an international court or tribunal found that actions taken by the Government were inconsistent with the UK’s legal obligations, the Government would have to immediately set out to Parliament what steps they would take to rectify the breach. Quite simply, once the Bill is passed, if the Government’s actions are found to be unlawful, it is only right that a Minister is brought to the House to explain how that has come to be and what they will do to put it right. The Government should not be afraid of that measure, because if their arguments hold sway, it would not be needed, although many others out there disagree with the position they have taken. There must be a mechanism to ensure that we can urgently restore our compliance and mitigate further damage to our global reputation, if indeed this Bill is found to be unlawful. We should not need to be pushing for this change, but if the Government insist that this is their chosen course, Members are duty-bound to do everything in our power to ensure that the Government do the right thing.
In the TV debates in the latest Tory leadership contest, the Foreign Secretary has been boasting about this legislation as an example of her effectiveness and her ability, but we see it differently. If she were so effective in her role, she would get back around the negotiating table, rather than countenance the UK breaking the international legal framework it should be championing, with huge impacts for Britain’s wider reputation and effectiveness. [Interruption.] The Minister, who I have a great deal of respect for, is chuntering from a sedentary position, but the collapse in trust in this Government has been made clear to us. With this zombie Government, it is likely that that trust has fallen to an even lower level.
I will speak briefly to some of the other amendments. I will not rehearse the arguments we have already made about the Henry VIII powers and the related amendments that we discussed in the earlier debate, except to add that many reasonable amendments have been tabled, including amendment 2 by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Taking back control for this Parliament should mean that parliamentary approval is required for operationalising provisions of this Bill.
Equally, we support the principle behind amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), which would make the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly required—we all want to see the Assembly functioning again—and ensure that the views of all communities are heard and considered before unilaterally making changes with wide-ranging implications, as this Bill does. Both those amendments would undo the real power grab by this zombie interim Government, trying to approve large numbers of unaccountable powers in areas of huge sensitivity. It is simply not the way to proceed. I will seek a Division on new clause 12, but we will not press new clause 11 at this stage. I look forward to hearing the contributions of others in this debate.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie. I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive approach  he has taken, as always, and I am grateful, too, to the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, particularly the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who is not in his place. He has been very helpful in a number of discussions we have had. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his place for the first time in the Chamber.
The reason behind my two amendments, 2 and 47, was well rehearsed on Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, so I do not seek to repeat that. As the House, and my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, know well, I have misgivings about the Bill, as do a number of right hon. and hon. Members, and I cannot say that that has changed. My right hon. and learned Friend says that amendment 47 is unprecedented. With respect, it is unprecedented for regulations to breach international law; that is why I tabled the amendment. However, he and I, and everyone in this House, hope that we will never get to that stage; of course, by far the best outcome would be for negotiated changes to the protocol, which we all want, to be brought into force. Those with whom I have engaged, on both sides of the Irish sea, have good will and are men and women of honour; I hope that that will enable us to find a window for that negotiation, if the Bill passes its stages in this House.
Of course, the Bill would then go to the upper House. As the Bill was not in an election manifesto, that revising Chamber will be entitled to look with considerable care at the issues that I and others have ventilated in these debates. The best outcome would be if that never became necessary, for the reasons that we have all rehearsed.
I have set out the caveats, have said where I hope this matter will go, and have said that it will be troubling if the Bill needs to go through the whole parliamentary process and ever needs to come into force; I hope it is made redundant by a negotiated change. In that spirit, I will not press my amendments to a Division.

Stephen Farry: I will speak to my amendment 3, and some others. The Bill is notionally about the good of Northern Ireland, but we cannot escape the reality: it is not supported by the majority of people or businesses in Northern Ireland, which rather prompts the question: why is the Bill going forward, if it is so unwanted there, and is seen as damaging to the wider community and the economic life of the region?
We could discuss consent to Brexit and the protocol, and how we got here, but I will not give into that temptation. I will focus on consent to where we are on the Bill. Brexit, the protocol and any modifications to it are matters for the UK Government and the European Union to work through in negotiations. Northern Ireland is not directly party to those negotiations. The issue of the consent of Northern Ireland, and specifically the Assembly, is recognised in article 18 of the protocol. I believe that was inserted into the protocol at the insistence of the UK Government, rather than the European Commission, so the Government have recognised the importance of the views of the Assembly.
The Government talk about the importance of Unionist concerns, and of getting some degree of cross-community consent, but the bottom line is that the Government are working towards a minority agenda. It is fine to have a debate about whether the aim should be majority consent  or cross-community consent, particularly in the context of a divided society, but I am not aware of any democratic society in the world where progress is based on the views of a minority.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Northern Ireland.

Stephen Farry: Well, obviously, that is about to happen in Northern Ireland, if the Bill goes through its stages. We cannot escape the reality that a majority of MLAs have signed a letter making it very clear that they do not support the Bill. I urge all Members of this House, and of the House of Lords, to respect the views of the people of Northern Ireland, who have a direct mandate. Obviously, we have a group of MPs here who represent Northern Ireland, though some of them do not take their seats, which is regrettable. The views of the DUP are not the views of Northern Ireland. Of course, we have to address the views of the DUP, alongside the views of others, in trying to find a way forward, but it is not consistent with democracy to allow that view to dictate what happens to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Gavin Robinson: I have listened to the hon. Member outline to the Committee that the majority of people in the Northern Ireland Assembly are against the Bill. We hear him say that he recognises there are issues that need to be resolved, yet he was fully supportive of the Northern Ireland protocol and talked about its full implementation. He was supportive of New Decade, New Approach in 2020, yet he was against the provisions within it on the UK internal market. His party was against the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, against triggering article 16 when the conditions were met and outlined in the White Paper, and now against this Bill. When are we going to get to the stage where we actually resolve the issues in Northern Ireland?

Stephen Farry: There is a lot in that intervention. I hope that I can address the hon. Member’s points in order. I have been consistent throughout this process in recognising that there is a need for pragmatism, but the bottom line has to be that outcomes are mutually agreed between the UK and the European Union, and they have to be sustainable and legal solutions. I very much supported New Decade, New Approach; I did not support the UK Internal Market Act, because that diverged from that. Of course I want Northern Ireland to have full access to Great Britain and Great Britain to have access to Northern Ireland, and to reduce the impediments as far as possible.
We have discussed at length on many occasions a range of constructive proposals to address the issues, including the red and green channel proposal, which can only be delivered through negotiations, and wider sanitary and phytosanitary measures—preferably a wider UK-EU veterinary agreement—to address movements across the Irish sea. Those are pragmatic solutions that would address the vast bulk of the issues raised by businesses, as opposed to the ideological matters of sovereignty spoken about by people in here or elsewhere in Great Britain; that is an important distinction to make. I regret to say that at various times, such solutions—particularly the veterinary agreement—have been rejected by Unionism, and I confess that I find that bizarre.
There are some genuine concerns about the implications of the Bill. There are major implications for Northern Ireland’s economy, particularly for the ability of businesses to access the single market. There are also implications for the UK as a whole. The UK’s international image will take an even further hit from breaking international law and undermining the rules-based international order, at a time when that is so important whenever we are facing down Russian aggression against Ukraine, and other countries around the world are potentially breaching international law—I am looking at China in particular, among a number of other situations.
The UK is also risking economic retaliation from the European Union, which I do not want to happen, but is a genuine risk if this legislation passes. At a time of major economic pressure in the UK as a whole, it is bizarre that anyone would seek to make the situation worse through a trade confrontation with the European Union.
It is absurd for people to vote for and proceed with the passage of the Bill—to take all that pain and those consequences—in the name of doing Northern Ireland a favour, when the majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland do not believe it is a favour; indeed, they believe it is incredibly harmful. The Government have acknowledged that the Sewel convention should apply to this legislation, but also recognise that, unfortunately, in the absence of an Assembly, that becomes moot.
We are in a chicken and egg situation. The Government are saying, “We can’t talk about consent of the Assembly in the absence of the DUP,” but want the Bill to get the DUP back into power sharing. Of course, if amendment 3 were accepted, there would be a huge incentive for the DUP to go back into power sharing in order that eventual consent or otherwise could be considered by the Assembly, if warranted. There is a certain inbuilt incentive to put that challenge to return to the DUP.
My amendment would essentially link commencement of the Bill to the democratic vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We can discuss whether that should be a majoritarian vote or a cross-community vote in the Assembly, but either would be far better than a situation where we have a minority dictating an outcome. There is, in theory, an article 18 vote scheduled for 2024, and that covers the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. That vote will become null and void if the Bill is passed and implemented, and in particular whenever large aspects of article 5 have become excluded provisions. Indeed, the Bill goes even further; it even allows Ministers to do away with article 18 votes on a legal basis, so that the views of the Assembly in 2024 could be absolutely taken away.
The amendment would ensure that the democratic voices of the people of Northern Ireland, as expressed through the Northern Ireland Assembly, were taken into account. If the Bill is genuinely about the good of Northern Ireland, respect will be given to the views of the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 23 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 26, page 15, line 44, at beginning insert “Provided that the Northern Ireland Assembly has first passed a resolution indicating support for this Act,”
This amendment, together with Amendment 4, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.—(Stephen Farry.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 275.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 12 - Adjudications of matters pertaining to international law

“No later than two weeks after any finding by any international court, tribunal or arbitration panel that any provision of this Act, or any action taken by a Minister in exercise of powers granted by this Act, is inconsistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown must—
(a) report to each House of Parliament setting out the extent to which the relevant court, tribunal or arbitration panel has found that any provision of, or any exercise of power under, this Act is inconsistent with the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom; and
(b) set out what steps Ministers propose take in order to bring the United Kingdom into compliance with those international obligations.”—(Stephen Doughty.)
This new clause would provide that, if an international court, tribunal or arbitration panel found as a matter of fact that any actions taken by the government under the Bill were inconsistent with the UK’s international legal obligations, the Minister must report this finding to the House, and set out what steps the government will take to ensure the UK is in compliance with its international obligations.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 192, Noes 273.
Question accordingly negatived.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, not amended, reported.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.

Rosie Winterton: I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment in the name of Ian Blackford.

Michael Ellis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
While the debates in Committee have been heated—literally, given the ambient temperature—the exchanges have been productive. Members heard detailed scrutiny of the Bill and the Government’s planned solutions to the problems that the protocol is causing in Northern Ireland. Some Members do not agree with the Government’s diagnosis, but it has been reassuring to note how many Opposition Members do agree and accept the problems, even if they do not currently accept that the Government have no choice but to proceed unilaterally. I can understand that, but unfortunately, while our door is always open, there does not appear to be a fruitful negotiation to be had with the European Union at present.
We have not had a Report stage debate, as the Committee did not see fit to amend the Bill. I, and the Government as a whole, see that as a strong vote of support for our proposals, and we hope that those who are eagerly waiting for them to come to pass in Northern Ireland will take heart in the knowledge that they may not have to wait too long, and that the House of Commons has heard them. I hope that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and his party will hear that too, and will continue their moves towards returning to power sharing.
The Bill is a powerful toolkit. I know that there are noble Lords in the other place who might think it too powerful, but the Government have been clear on our policy and the range of detailed regulations that will be required, and these are the tools for the job. The Bill provides certainty that the elements of the protocol that have developed into problems will no longer apply in our domestic law and, alongside that, ensures that the Government can honour their promises to the people of all the communities in Northern Ireland. We will protect that which is working to maintain the economic and social framework for north-south traders and nationalists, and we will fix that which is undermining the lives and livelihoods of east-west traders and Unionists.
This Bill is the Government’s top legislative priority. Given the grave situation in Northern Ireland, it must be so. Negotiations will always remain a possibility, and the Bill ensures that implementation of any agreement will not cause further delays. Negotiations tomorrow are always a day away, but it is today in Northern Ireland and the issues are clearly with us now. In the absence of other comprehensive and durable solutions, the Government and Parliament must act. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister, Stephen Doughty.

Stephen Doughty: As if we needed any more evidence that this zombie Government are even now doing everything they can to avoid proper scrutiny, here we are as they push this Bill through its Third Reading with less than 24 hours’ notice—[Interruption.] We had 24 hours’ notice of Third Reading, despite what the Secretary of State is chuntering. If only Conservative Members had had the courage to remove the Prime Minister sooner, Northern Ireland and Britain’s international standing could have been spared the fallout that will be inevitable from this legislation. Just now we have heard that there are two candidates vying to take his position who are just as tied up in this mess and in whom trust has fallen to at an all-time low.
This week, Labour Members—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House—have tabled amendments to improve the Bill by ensuring that it would comply with our international legal obligations, to prevent a brazen ministerial power grab not just from this House but from the people on Northern Ireland, and to ensure that the changes to the protocol would have the consent of all the communities of Northern Ireland. Conservative Members have voted each one of them down, but not without knowing the facts. They know what this Bill is and what it means—but don’t take my word for it. Take it from the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who called the Bill “unamendably bad”, or from the former Attorney General—

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Doughty: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here throughout the course of the debates on the Bill today.
The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), admitted:
“I do not believe that this legislation will produce a permanent solution”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 399.]
Even the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said that the Bill failed on all three counts of upholding international law, achieving its aims and maintaining our global standing. From these assessments and countless others, it is clear that the Bill does not address the challenges of the protocol.
Only to this outgoing Prime Minister, his zombie team of Ministers and those who have not yet had the courage to disown him completely is the Bill worth defending. Regrettably, it could be said to represent the state of certain parts of the Conservative party today. We can say that because it proposes a complete abdication of responsibility from resolving challenges that the Government themselves have created. We must remember that it was this Prime Minister who negotiated the protocol and ran an election campaign on it, and now it is the Foreign Secretary who, in vying for his job, seeks to advance her own political fortunes by unravelling it. We are truly through the looking glass. Time and again we have seen senior members of the Government attempt to make political gains from what is a very serious and fragile situation. To them, damaging our reputation on the world stage is a second thought and risking trade barriers during a cost of living crisis is a price worth paying—never mind the issues that this Bill could cause for the people of Northern Ireland.
When it comes to the protocol, Labour would not act like this. As the party that negotiated the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we would do what we have always done: get around the table and negotiate in good faith. We would find workable, practical and sustainable solutions such as a veterinary agreement and a data sharing deal that would eliminate the need for the vast majority of checks. We would negotiate with the EU to seek more flexibility on VAT and use that to take VAT off energy bills to help with the cost of living crisis. We would not breach our international obligations or derail our relationship with European partners while gifting Ministers powers without proper scrutiny, as this outgoing Government seem ready to do.
Before Members are tempted to go there, this is not about trying to relitigate Brexit. We want to see it work, which means leadership and negotiation to defend the UK’s interest, to safeguard peace and stability in Northern Ireland and, crucially, to ensure that our word continues to mean something internationally. Trustworthiness and a commitment to the international rule of law are British values, yet those values are impossible to reconcile with this Bill and the Government’s agenda in forcing it through.
We know the protocol is not perfect, but we have all known that from the very beginning. The Government, however indignant they may be today, knew we would reach this moment. We have listened to the legitimate concerns expressed by colleagues on both sides of the House and from all communities about the functioning of the protocol and its ability to deliver for Northern Ireland and its people. Those legitimate concerns need to be addressed, and the EU needs to show flexibility and understanding in addressing them. We are under no illusion in that regard, but let us be crystal clear that this  Bill does nothing whatsoever to remedy that. Labour will be voting against this Bill tonight to uphold the rule of international law and to protect our global reputation.

Bill Cash: It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) says I have not participated. I did not participate this afternoon, as the House can well understand, but what difference does it make? I spoke in Committee on previous days, and I spoke on Second Reading. We only have this Bill because of the work done by a number of people to ensure it got its Second Reading. I will leave it at that for the moment.
The hon. Gentleman, in his arguments on international law, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the other people whose assertions he quoted, are talking through their hats. The reason I say that is terribly simple: for those who have any knowledge of these matters—[Interruption.] Yes, I mean that. For those who understand these matters, this Bill is the only way to address the democratic deficit created by the protocol.
I am the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we receive a tsunami of legislation every single week that comes into Northern Ireland as a matter of EU law and binds voters and businesses, whom the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth claims to be trying to protect, without their having any involvement or influence. They have no protection from Westminster, and this Bill is so important because it gives back to the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, through a sovereign Act of the United Kingdom, the right to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are listened to and protected.
This democratic deficit—[Interruption.] I see that some Opposition Members obviously know nothing about this Bill and its content, or any of the principles of international law that quite clearly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is shouting at me across the Chamber, but it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. He does not know what he is talking about, and some people who have studied this do.
The words on state necessity are “grave and imminent peril”. Nothing could be more perilous to the people of Northern Ireland than to be legislated for in absentia by an unelected Commission making proposals that are agreed in the Council of Ministers, behind closed doors, without so much as a transcript and by a majority of other countries.
Northern Ireland belongs to the United Kingdom, and it belongs to the democratic decision making of its people, just as constituencies such as mine do. I do not have to enlarge upon this but to say that the Bill is essential to protecting Northern Ireland and its constitutional integrity, irrespective of the rantings of those who claim it is a breach of international law when, actually, state necessity does provide an answer and a remedy to the democratic deficit that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand and clearly does not care about.

Richard Thomson: I rise to confirm on Third Reading that the SNP will also oppose this Bill, and to take the opportunity to thank Maria-Clorinda Luck from our  research team and all the House staff for the support they have given us throughout this process. It has been very much appreciated.
Despite our opposition to this Bill throughout, and despite the fact that the protocol was of the Government’s own doing, we have always accepted that seeking a renegotiation of its terms was a legitimate aim. So we have tried to stay focused throughout on the content and intent of the Bill, and through doing that I have learned a number of things. Perhaps first and foremost, I have learned that the words “urgent” and “necessity”, at least in the eyes of the Paymaster General, do not mean quite what I previously thought. That was an education.
More importantly, the people of Scotland will have learned something about their own place and standing in the Union. The Paymaster General has more than once in Committee dismissed amendments that would have given the Northern Irish Assembly oversight and democratic control over whether aspects of the Bill would ever be switched on; they have been dismissed on the grounds that there is, clearly, no Assembly sitting. He has, however, also been happy to go past the fact breezily that a Parliament within these islands that is sitting, in Edinburgh, at Holyrood, has declined to give its legislative consent—but still the legislation continues without that consent.
I have tried throughout to empathise with and understand how Unionists in Northern Ireland would feel, and I have said on more than one occasion in this House that I cannot for the life of me understand how any Unionist Government who seek to have that label attached to them could ever have left Northern Ireland in a situation where there was, in effect, a trade border down the Irish sea; it is inconceivable that any competent Government could have done that. However, if this Bill brings some satisfaction to some in Northern Ireland, it throws a few issues for voters in Scotland into very sharp relief. We have found out that the precious Brexit has at all stages throughout this pantomime been much more important than the previous Union. We have found out that we do not exist in anything remotely approaching a partnership of equals. We have also found that we are no longer part of a state that can claim with any shred of credibility to stand up for international law and the rule of law and that can be respected for the stance it takes as part of that rules-based international order.
Sadly, this is not going to be the end of the process, because if the measures in the Bill are used, owing to the Government’s inability to negotiate and push at, what is, an open door, we are going to find ourselves, at the height of a cost of living crisis, experiencing even more frictions than we are currently for our manufacturers and our consumers. We will also find this legislation being prayed in aid by despots around the world as they seek to escape their own obligations under international law. What is clearest of all is that the Union in which Scots were invited to vote to remain in 2014—to “lead not leave”, as the slogan had it—has been changed utterly and is now unrecognisable. That, above all, is why we can, we must and we will have a referendum on Scotland’s future.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I will be brief. I thank the Minister and his team for the work they have done on this Bill, and I thank other right hon. and hon. Members for the contributions they have made to the Committee stage. The Democratic Unionist party supports this Bill.  We believe that the Government are right to act at this time; that a very real issue needs to be addressed; and that Northern Ireland at the moment is without a fully functioning Government, because the consensus essential for power sharing to operate has broken down, and the reason for that is the protocol—that is acknowledged.
Even those parties that supported the protocol initially recognise that change is required. We have waited and we have been patient. The European Union has refused to change the negotiating mandate of Maroš Šefčovič, which means he is limited in his scope as to what can be negotiated. The solution that is required necessitates the EU changing its negotiating mandate. If it does, let us see where a negotiation—a meaningful negotiation—leads, but I am sceptical that the EU will change its mandate. In the absence of such a change, the Government are right to act, because their first priority is the integrity of the United Kingdom and ensuring that all parts of the United Kingdom can function properly, that the Acts of Union are respected and that article 6 and the rights that flow from it mean that Northern Ireland has the right to trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom.
This Bill offers a framework to correct the difficulty that we face and to deal with the real problems that the protocol has created not just for business and consumers in Northern Ireland but by undermining the identity of the majority of people in Northern Ireland who want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We have heard a lot in this debate about majorities, but there is no evidence whatever that anything other than the greater number of people in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is their settled will, and it should be respected. The protocol does not respect it, and that is why change is required. This Bill offers the opportunity to deliver that change, and we support it.
In closing, I say this to the Members of the House of Lords, who will consider the Bill in due course. They may be tempted to make radical changes to it, but they need to understand that the choice is not merely one of determining whether the Bill is a good thing or not. The Bill is essential to protect the Belfast or Good Friday agreement, to protect political stability in Northern Ireland, to restore the political institutions in Northern Ireland and to restore the consensus that is at the heart of power sharing. That is the choice, and if they should try to wreck the Bill, they need to understand that, in so doing, they will also destroy the consensus—the basis, the foundations—for the Belfast agreement. That will fall to them. Without that consensus the agreement does not work; that is what we are talking about here—that is the choice for those in the other place. Do they want to protect the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and restore stability in Northern Ireland and the consensus that is required for the agreement to operate, or do they not? I put that choice to them, and I hope they will be wise in the decisions they have to make.

Colum Eastwood: I promise to be brief, because we have heard a lot over the last number of days and we have heard a lot repeated as well. The Bill clearly and blatantly breaks international law. It  breaks an agreement that the Government made with the European Union and that was trumpeted to the electorate as a fantastic deal. I think the Bill will end up going the same way as the Prime Minister.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Colum Eastwood: No, I will not.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give way?

Colum Eastwood: I will not. Sit down!
This Bill is a sop to the DUP and a campaigning tool for the Foreign Secretary in the Conservative party leadership election. If it is driven through, the only likely outcome is a trade dispute with the European Union. Well, good luck to the next Prime Minister if they want to go into the general election with prices going even higher than they already are.
I have heard a lot from some interesting people about the Good Friday agreement. I have always supported the Good Friday agreement, and I am delighted that so many people support it now. However, there is a nonsense at the heart of the argument that the Good Friday agreement is based on consensus. It is not; that is not possible. I sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly for almost nine years, and there was very little consensus in that place. Things got gone and things got voted on, but majorities made decisions.
The reality for all those people who say they care about the people of Northern Ireland is that the people of Northern Ireland do not want this Bill. Their elected representatives do not want this Bill. The representatives of the business groups we have been told so much about do not want this Bill. Anybody with any sense knows that this is a blatant breaking of international law.
We have also heard an awful lot about the Union. I think that some people in this place, who have talked a lot about the Union but have acted in a certain way around this Brexit farce since 2016, will come to regret it. There will be statues erected in the new Ireland to Boris Johnson and some of the Members of the DUP, because that is the road that they have taken us down. I fully respect—by the way—the principle of consent, and it was my predecessor who made sure that it was in the Good Friday agreement. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland, whatever anybody says and however much I want to change it, cannot be changed until the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland vote to change it. To say anything else is just not true.
I wish to end my remarks with an ask of the DUP. We have been told over the past number of months that the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot meet unless this piece of legislation goes through. Well, this piece of legislation is just about to go through the House of Commons. Will the DUP now take the opportunity to go back into Stormont to live up to their responsibilities as democratically elected leaders in Northern Ireland and do the job that people are crying out for them to do? If they do not do so, the SDLP will put a recall motion into the Northern Ireland Assembly tonight, asking them to come back in to nominate a Speaker and to nominate a Deputy First Minister, who I hope will be the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson).
Despite all the talk about the Good Friday agreement, we have to get back to working together, to working the common ground, to dealing with the issues in our health service, in our economy and in all those issues that people say they care about. We will not be able to do that if we stay out of Government for months upon months upon months, because that is how long it will take for this Bill to get Royal Assent. That is my appeal to the DUP.
I make this appeal to the Government: there is no option to unilaterally rip up an agreement. The only way that we can do these sensitive, difficult things is to sit down with our partners and negotiate. I met Lord Frost many, many times when he was in that position. I did not get the sense that he was a man determined to find accommodation and compromise. Whatever things may look like in September, I appeal to the Government to sit down with the European Union and stop using Northern Ireland as a political football.

Hilary Benn: There is a problem with the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and it needs to be sorted out, but this Bill is not the way to do it. Indeed, it will end up making matters worse, because it has damaged trust—the very thing that is required to solve the problem. That is why I will not be voting for the Bill tonight.

Carla Lockhart: You will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will also keep my remarks very brief.
Tonight, we have reached a milestone and we can say that we are off to a good start in this place. I am pleased that the amendments designed to wreck this Bill have been defeated, safe in knowledge that they were more about grandstanding than actually helping the businesses and constituents who, day in, day out, are affected by the protocol.
The Bill, as it is, certainly does have the potential to restore devolution in Northern Ireland and preserve the constitutional balance. Although the SDLP Members have consistently called for the re-establishment of the Executive, they fail to recognise why that Executive are not sitting—it is the fact that not one Unionist party in Northern Ireland supports the protocol. We are actually elected on that mandate. The SDLP forget and ignore our mandate, which is to ensure that our constitutional place within the United Kingdom is restored and the economic impediments to trade are scrapped.
Throughout the course of the debate, it was and is very clear that there is no alternative to the Bill. This Bill is the only solution, after everything else has been tried, to help restore devolution.
Let us now address the EU and the pipe dream of further negotiations. It is fact that negotiations have been tried and have failed. It is abundantly clear, as per the reports today in The Daily Telegraph, that the EU is not in a position to renegotiate a satisfactory outcome. We only have to look at the fact that it is continuing to pursue legal action against the UK for grace periods that virtually everyone in Northern Ireland supports as essential.
As the EU continues to demonstrate a complete indifference to the real challenges in Northern Ireland, it is naive to believe that there is a negotiated solution  that comes close to delivering the objectives of this Bill. A new Prime Minister is not going to change the EU’s fundamentally belligerent approach, which in truth is less about protecting the single market and more about punishing the UK and warning other countries not to consider leaving.
Today is an important staging post, but we know there is a long road ahead. I have no doubt that the other place will try to thwart the will of this House—those actually elected to legislate on these matters—but I warn those in the other place that, if they wish to see devolution restored, they will leave well alone.
The Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party parrot the narrative of others who will not even come and sit in this House. They were slow to realise the damage the protocol was doing in Northern Ireland. They eventually caught up and sought mitigations, but they still bury their heads in the sand regarding the consent of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland to the protocol. It is all smoke and mirrors to deflect from the folly of their own position.
The UK as a whole voted on the same ballot that the whole UK should leave, and leave on the same terms. It does not matter who the leader of the Conservative party is; it only matters that they repair the damage that has been done in the form of the protocol and are not bullied by the EU.

Robin Millar: The hon. Lady makes an important point about the leadership of the Conservative party. As one of many on the Conservative side of the House who pushed for this Bill, I think it is important that the House understand that the two candidates who go forward for the leadership have also given strong undertakings on the importance of Northern Ireland within the UK and the importance of the protocol. I hope she can take that as reassurance.

Carla Lockhart: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. We welcome those comments, but we hope and trust that the incoming Prime Minister will not be bullied by the EU, but will bring Northern Ireland with them, restore its place in the UK’s internal market and allow it to trade on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom.

Bill Cash: A number of assertions have been made during the course of this debate about the breaking of the international rule of law and the rest of it. Has the hon. Lady heard of the House of Commons Library paper that clearly indicates that de Valera himself broke the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1938? Not only that, but A. J. P. Taylor, in his extremely erudite book, also says that the treaty was ripped up by de Valera in 1938.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the hon. Member for that wonderful point. I genuinely thank every hon. Member who has put their trust in this Bill and supported it; the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) has been a real friend to Northern Ireland. We will be supporting the Bill tonight.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 195.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions:
(a) in the name of Lucy Frazer relating to Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill: Money;
(b) in the name of Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng relating to the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022; and
(c) in the name of Secretary Dominic Raab relating to the Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 705).—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Treasury; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 and 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.

Civil Proceedings

That the Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022 (S.I., 2022, No. 705), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Conviction of Yasin Malik

Debbie Abrahams: I rise to present this petition concerning the unfair trial of Yasin Malik, and his consequent unsafe conviction, on behalf of nearly 4,500 constituents and residents across the UK. The petitioners
“request that the House of Commons urge the Government to raise Yasin Malik’s unfair trial with the Indian Government, call for immediate medical aid for Mr Malik and his removal from solitary confinement, and request that the Indian Government release Mr Malik on bail, pending a new trial.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the trial of Yasin Malik contravenes article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding his receiving a fair trial and India’s own constitution; notes that Mr Malik was arrested and taken to Jammu Jail in 2019 shortly after the Indian Government banned the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, then transferred to Tihar Jail on the outskirts of Delhi on 7 May 2019, where he was kept in inhumane conditions; further that he was arrested on a contrived offence by the Indian Government under the Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA); further that the PSA and UAPA have been condemned by the United Nations as contravening human rights law, the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of India 1950; declares that the Indian government is failing to observe 1948 United Nations Resolution 47 which states: “The Government of India should themselves and through the Government of the State declare and make known that all subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State and that there will be freedom of the press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit”; further that India is still using colonial detention laws from 1860 especially the Law of Sedition under Penal codes 121 & 124, which  was abolished in the UK in 1967; and further that there are concerns about the independence of the Special Additional Sessions Court in relation to the National Investigation Agency.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to raise Yasin Malik’s unfair trial with the Indian Government, call for immediate medical aid for Mr Malik and his removal from solitary confinement, and request that the Indian Government release Mr Malik on bail, pending a new trial.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002758]

Petition - Liberty Pressing Solutions

Zarah Sultana: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Coventry South residents about Liberty Pressing Solutions, a manufacturing firm in Coventry with a skilled workforce who have recently been handed redundancy notices. The petition notes that this has happened
“during the cost-of-living crisis and will have a devastating impact on workers and their families”.
It notes the “woefully inadequate” redundancy offer. It declares that the owner, the Liberty Steel Group,
“has not done enough to protect jobs, prioritising profits over people.”
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons
“to do more to support skilled manufacturing jobs like those at Liberty Pressing Solutions, including through encouraging Liberty Steel Group to redouble efforts to find a buyer and, failing that, encouraging an improved redundancy offer to Liberty Pressing Solutions workers.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the constituency of Coventry South,
Notes that redundancy notices have been handed out to workers at Liberty Pressing Solutions in Coventry; further that this is happening during the cost-of-living crisis and will have a devastating impact on workers and their families; further that the redundancy offer made to workers is woefully inadequate; and further that Sanjeev Gupta, the owner of the Liberty Steel Group, has not done enough to protect jobs, prioritising profits over people.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to do more to support skilled manufacturing jobs like those at Liberty Pressing Solutions, including through encouraging Liberty Steel Group to redouble efforts to find a buyer and, failing that, encouraging an improved redundancy offer to Liberty Pressing Solutions workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002760]

Rural Communities: Housing and Planning

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Ben Everitt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this Adjournment debate on such an important topic—one that is close to my heart and to many of my constituents’ hearts.
I want to get straight to the point: community-led planning needs to be right at the core of the levelling-up agenda. When we empower local communities by involving them in planning, better results are achieved for everyone. That is especially important in rural areas, where a balance must be struck between building more houses and protecting our countryside. I know that my constituents in Milton Keynes North feel the effects when the process goes wrong. It is not hard; it just requires thought, ambition and vision.
Milton Keynes is proud to be a new city—so new, we are still building it! It worked because it was planned: a bold vision from the 1960s, with grid roads, planned infrastructure and green spaces. Urbanism, modernism and functionalism blended with nature and created strong thriving communities. We all love planning when it is done right, but reckless over-expansion in rural areas is a real and pressing danger. My constituents who live in rural communities and market towns such as Olney and Newport Pagnell, do not want, and do not deserve, to be swamped by poorly planned, sprawling housing developments. We need to make planning work better for people and their communities. We need to get back to pure principles, just as the visionaries who built Milton Keynes did.
This is not a case for nimbyism. Of course, rural communities face their own distinct housing challenges, and we must cater for them. The issues include an ageing population and higher house prices due to second home ownership. Although there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach, we must take heed of the issues and adapt planning policy to help, rather than hinder, rural areas.
I am clear that housing must be sustainable, appropriate, affordable and proportionate. It is on those four pillars that I make my case to the Minister. What is a sustainable approach to housing? How can it be achieved? When I talk about sustainability, I mean two equally important things: first, community involvement, because a development without a community at its heart is, by very definition, unsustainable; secondly, protecting the environment. Those two factors, successfully combined, are a sure-fire way of achieving sustainability.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman certainly has a reputation for looking after his constituents and I commend him for bringing the issue to the House; well done. Before the debate, I spoke to him about the natural environment. Does he agree that the current planning regime, which involves costly applications for farm buildings, needs to be overhauled to ensure that farmers are not paying to carry out work that is essential to their business and will ultimately be approved as a matter of course, and that more support could be given to the isolated rural communities to which he is referring to enhance the community while at the same time protecting the natural environment?

Ben Everitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Of course more can be done. Too often, rural communities and farmers feel that the planning system is stacked against them and that they have to jump through so many hoops—often, as he mentions, at great expense—to continue doing the job they have done for thousands of years. Farmers are the custodians of our countryside and the people who look after our food production, but the planning system in its current form does not support some of the things they need to be able to do to adapt to the modern world. We need a sustainable approach, which includes nature, as the hon. Gentleman says, and productive farmland.
A sustainable approach to planning is akin to growing a family. Rural villages and towns should expand just as a family expands: slowly, carefully and at a sustainable rate. In fact, we often forget that at the heart of planning are people, their loved ones and of course, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, their livelihoods. However, as of now, the current planning system favours larger-scale developments, which are often unfit and unsustainable in rural villages.

Paul Holmes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is outlining some problems in Milton Keynes that we are experiencing in Eastleigh. He knows that the Liberal Democrat council in Eastleigh are proposing a new town in Fair Oak of 2,500 homes, which is in their budgets going forward and being built by them. While I do not think that is a problem, we are seeing a lack of democratic accountability when it comes to the composition of the council. He knows that I brought forward a ten-minute rule motion several months ago about independent oversight on these planning issues. Does he agree with me, and can he outline how he sees democratic oversight going forward in the planning system, which needs desperate reform?

Ben Everitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I totally agree; in fact, I was happy to co-sponsor his ten-minute rule Bill, so I am very familiar with the situation. I found it frustrating and amusing in equal measure that in a recent by-election in Chesham and Amersham, the Liberal Democrats campaigned against development, and yet in Eastleigh, as we have seen, they are acting as both a mega-developer and the planning authority. This is the point at which democratic oversight has clearly failed, because there is no superior power. The council is both the developer and the planner. So we need to get local leadership into the planning system that fits with the local vision, but ultimately loops round to engagement with local communities so that people can have their say in what they want, and not experience the like of the situation that my hon. Friend has described, where they feel like they are being built around and villages become suburbanised as part of sprawling developments.
I have long believed that town planning should strengthen family bonds. We need sustainable planning policies that keep families together, so children can live near their parents, and grandparents can live near their children—think of the childcare benefits. Ultimately, that is better for society and better for our local economies, and would demonstrate genuine learning from the pandemic.
Sustainable planning is also about understanding the people who live in rural communities, their needs and their livelihoods, and how those differ from those of  more built-up urban environments. Sustainable planning keeps communities together, rather than pulling them apart.
Not only do we need to make housing and planning more sustainable, but it needs to be appropriate. In my experience both as a councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, the worst way to do developments is to put up huge sites that swamp villages and suburbanise market towns. Why? Because it is bad for nature and biodiversity, worse for farmland and food production, and worse still for rural communities. Small and medium enterprise builders tend to come off badly as well, getting locked out of the market, which reduces competition. As a Conservative, this contradicts the political values that I stand for. And this simply cannot continue.
The data backs that up. Rural areas are 18% less productive than the national average. But where there is a large gap, there is opportunity. If we can make a concerted effort to close that gap with appropriate growth, it could add £43 billion to the national economy alone.
When we talk about levelling up, we often talk about increasing economic growth in ways that we have not yet imagined. But one area that we know would promote that is the link between good planning and economic growth in rural areas. Planning policy is a multiplier. It influences housing allocation, socioeconomic conditions and the wider environment. If we view planning as just being about houses and physical infrastructure, we ignore those wider impacts and the potential for structural policy change.
If we can truly realise the appropriate planning policies that we need, we can start to build sensitive yet beautiful smaller housing for young people, their families, and older people. That not only supports housing targets with appropriate housing, but could also free up the logjam within the existing housing stock.
However, appropriate housing planning is conditional to affordability. Affordability in rural communities is of critical importance. Data from 2019 shows that only 9% of rural homes were affordable, compared with 19% of homes in urban areas. Lack of affordable homes in rural communities is a huge problem, as young people and young families find it harder to get on the housing ladder. I am very clear that the Government must commit to a single definition for affordable housing. That way, we can start building homes that are genuinely affordable in the areas where they need to be built. Without that, young people and young families will continue to be locked out of the housing market. The lack of affordable housing is as much to do with land supply, material availability and labour supply as it is to do with the type of housing that gets built. Those issues also need to be tackled.
On a positive note, affordable homes can unlock underutilised economic potential in rural areas. I know how crucial that could be for many other Members whose constituencies are also home to rural communities. For every 10 affordable homes built, research shows that the economy can be boosted by £1.4 million, creating 26 jobs and generating a quarter of a million pounds in Government revenue. It does not take a maths degree to know what happens if we can implement this strategy at scale. That is why I keep banging on about this. If we set  manageable localised targets and work co-operatively with town planners and developers, we can turn up the gears on economic growth, while providing a future for the younger generations in areas where we previously thought it might be difficult to do so. I am optimistic that we can achieve that.
The fourth and final pillar is a proportionate approach. We all know that Rome was not built in a day—and, of course, neither was Milton Keynes. Now a city, it is 55 years old. It has taken 55 years to get to where  we are and we are still building it. Up to this point, it has taken considered, careful planning, because—this is really important—communities do not grow overnight. Communities are nurtured. Taking a proportionate approach means scaling housing developments to the areas they are built for. For rural areas, it is much more efficient to have smaller scale development, where as few as 10 homes or a similar sized development in each village would solve the existing rural housing crisis.
By taking a proportionate approach, the identities of market towns and villages can be protected, while ensuring there are enough homes for everyone, including young families. Gentle, beautiful density can work in villages as much as towns, so long as we build the right kind of houses in the right place, at the right time and at the right rate. We all know that more houses are needed, but a tailored approach must be taken in rural areas. It should not be as hard as we are making it for ourselves.
What is abundantly clear is that our planning system also requires radical reform. While not a technical term in the world of planning, we need to make the planning profession sexy again. We can achieve that by implementing a series of changes and innovations to level up planning in the UK. First, we need to modernise the planning system and existing methods of construction. In practice, that means we need to be more digital, more codified and more transparent. Bringing the planning system into the 21st century should be a priority in any successful levelling up agenda. Let us be honest: a digitised planning system would represent a more desirable industry for young, talented people to begin their careers. The benefits would be twofold: far more efficient planning and a higher influx of talent into the sector.
Backing that up, we need to invest in degree apprenticeships for planning. We need to work with degree apprenticeships providers to build up to date curriculums that reflect a modern approach to planning. If we can get more people into those types of programmes, we can put the brakes on the brain drain in the private sector. We can also make structural changes to attract more talent into the sector. Local authorities need to be supported in providing appropriate resources to planning departments.
Better resource allocation equals more efficient planning departments, which in turn will make planning more desirable. Even smaller changes, such as making the role of a senior planner akin to that of a deputy chief executive, could change that narrative. Levelling up our planning system will be for nothing if we do not stop the brain drain, so I am strongly in favour of an integrated approach. With the modern reforms I have mentioned, I truly believe we can build beautiful houses that are not just identikit cut-and-paste estates. This is about taking pride in planning again and taking pride in the homes that we build.
But I want to offer a word of caution: while we rightly move at speed to achieve these changes, we must rely on local leadership within the levelling-up agenda. We know that there is an important cycle in levelling up: education, skills, jobs, inward investment, business growth and infrastructure growth all lead to local economic growth and more jobs, and we do not even know yet the skills needed for those jobs, so that loops back into education. Some or all of these themes could require some form of Government intervention at some point, depending on the local circumstances. That means local leadership is key, as is remembering that levelling up is about opportunities and that people and their homes and communities are at the heart of this cycle.
The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill will be vital in catalysing this cycle, but, first, housing development planning must change, and fast. It is the hardest, most expensive, most time-consuming bit to do, but it is the most important. When we do not focus on sustainable, affordable, appropriate and proportionate housing, the results are detrimental to many and the environment.
I have seen this in my own constituency, where the MK East development encapsulates what can go wrong. This development does not respect the character of local villages—a factor I know my constituents care deeply about. Secondly, it takes farmland out of production during a time when the world is facing a food crisis, when instead we need all our farms to be at full pelt. How can this be considered sustainable, appropriate, affordable and proportionate?
When local leadership lacks clear policy direction, it fails, and we end up with poor planning. I argue that local leadership needs to be informed of new policy and, critically, the four pillars that I have put forward today. Of course, there are reasons to be positive and I welcome the recent White Paper on the private rented sector. However, there is always more to do if we are to truly look forward to levelling up housing quality across the country.
Whether as MP for Milton Keynes North or through my role as chair of the all-party group on housing market and housing delivery, I will continue to bang the drum on this issue. We must integrate planning with the needs of rural communities and the villages and towns within which they live, making housing more sustainable, appropriate, affordable and proportionate. Only then will we be able to protect our bustling high streets and thriving local businesses, which provide so much of our great country’s unique and enduring character.

Rosie Winterton: I call Minister Marcus Jones.

Marcus Jones: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a pleasure to serve at the Dispatch Box with you in the Chair. It is four and a half years since I last had the pleasure of speaking from the Dispatch Box and two weeks ago I did not expect to be standing here tonight, but in my 12 years in this House I have learned to expect the unexpected.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing this important debate and his thoughtful and impressive speech; he is a  passionate champion for his constituency and I listened intently to his remarks. While this debate may specifically apply to his constituency in Milton Keynes, it touches on issues that matter to people in every constituency in the country: how we empower communities to be more strongly involved in the planning process; how we deliver the housing needed in our communities; how our planning regime properly reflects the true interests of our constituents; and how we protect rural areas that give our great nation its reputation for outstanding beauty.
I applaud my hon. Friend for his clear commitment to this issue, and I and the Government share his sentiments. We share his determination to strengthen and protect rural communities and reinforce the bonds that tie them together, and we share the view that our planning rules and regulations must help facilitate that ambition, not hinder it. My hon. Friend has become a well-established Member of the House and, as I am sure he will understand, I cannot comment on the specifics of the Milton Keynes local plan, owing to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in our planning system. It is good to see the Secretary of State sitting here on the Front Bench tonight; that shows his commitment to the subject. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North will appreciate that, again, I cannot talk too closely to individual planning applications. As he will know, however, local authorities are required to undertake a formal period of public consultation prior to any planning applications. Where relevant concerns are raised, those must be taken into account.
My hon. Friend will know that I can speak to our unwavering commitment to Britain’s rural communities and to keeping this country green and beautiful, as well as what we are doing to protect those areas while encouraging development in the places where it is most needed. Importantly, I can speak to our priorities and what we as a Government expect from local plans.
My hon. Friend rightly champions the vital role that communities should play in the planning process and makes the case for why they should be more involved in the process of bringing forward new development. The Government agree. As part of our levelling-up agenda, we believe that communities need to be at the heart of the planning process.

Paul Holmes: Will the Minister give way?

Marcus Jones: I will make a little more progress and, if I have time at the end, I will give way.

Rosie Winterton: The Minister has not been given a lot of time to respond.

Marcus Jones: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A core part of our levelling-up White Paper was how we make sure that, alongside globally competitive cities that are dotted around the country, we have thriving rural communities. Our view is that levelling up for rural areas should preserve what gives those areas an identity and what makes them special—the things that draw in millions of tourists to many of our rural areas because they are the most beautiful parts of our country. As a Government, we recognise that the needs of rural areas and the needs of urban areas are often profoundly different.
The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which is weaving its way through Parliament, will deliver a planning system that puts further power back into the hands of communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North has spoken about the need for a less adversarial system of planning rules and the need to get communities involved at a much earlier stage in decisions. That makes me think that he must have had some role in drafting the Bill, because that is exactly what we have set out to do.
The Bill will place a duty on local authorities to engage with their communities on proposed plans and reform the process for producing plans, so that it is simpler, faster and easier for communities to engage with. The days of residents ploughing through dozens of PDF files set out in a confusing manner should be over. This will be a clear opportunity for local people to get involved at a key stage in the planning process, with longer minimum periods for engagement than there are now. That will be made easier by plans being shorter, with more accessible documents. At the same time, we will increase the opportunities for involvement to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people.
The Bill includes measures to improve our planning system and to bring it into the 21st century by digitising it in a way that helps to radically improve people’s access to the relevant information about plans and planning applications, while removing barriers to engagement by creating a more democratic planning system with planning decisions and local plans being informed by a larger and more diverse range of community views. Our new measures will also give neighbourhoods greater say in how their area looks and feels. In practice, that means that they can help define things such as design codes so that they can shape how their area looks. That kind of transparency will make the process smoother for all parties, while putting more power back where it belongs—in communities’ hands.
I will also cover what we expect from local plans. At the most basic level, local plans are responsible for identifying what development is needed in an area, setting out where it should go and, in doing so, providing certainty for communities, businesses and developers. Any local plan has to pass through a series of checks and balances, including a public consultation and public examination in front of an independent inspector, who is charged with examining plans impartially to make sure that they are legally compliant and sound. Councils can adopt a plan only if it is sound: it should be consistent with national policy, be supported by evidence and, importantly, take the views of local people into account.
I will not comment on the content of the local plan in Milton Keynes that covers my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I know that it was adopted in 2019, so it is less than  five years old. An up-to-date plan is crucial, because it reduces speculative development, supports our villages and towns to develop, and can be written in a way that preserves the unique character of their communities. We would expect local planning decisions in Milton Keynes to be made in a way that is consistent with the local plan and that honours the agreement made between the local council and the local community when the plan was formed.
One area in which rural communities have much in common with urban communities is that they all want more affordable housing. As my hon. Friend points out, house prices have continued to defy gravity for years and years, which has had a profound impact on many people who want to become homeowners but have been priced out of the majority of homes in their area. I agree with my hon. Friend that affordable homes are key to ending the housing crisis. Local communities like those of his constituents in Milton Keynes rightly want and expect the Government and local authorities to deliver the kind of homes that help their children and give young people and older people who have always lived in an area the chance to buy their own home.
If we are serious about levelling up and restoring people’s pride in their communities, we have to match our commitment with affordable homes that give local people the opportunity to stay local. We need to rectify the situation, and we have a plan to do so. Our landmark affordable homes programme is one of the central ways in which we are making that happen. Between 2010 and 2021, the scheme has delivered more than 212,000 affordable homes in rural local authority areas. It recognises the needs of rural communities, which is why between April 2015 and March 2021, 10% of all new affordable homes were built in villages with a population under 3,000. The value of those homes goes way beyond mere statistics: each one has the potential to transform the life of hard-working families in an area.
The Government share my hon. Friend’s determination to protect rural communities and strengthen the fabric that holds them together. Once again, I thank him for securing this debate; with so much focus on other events, it is important that in this House we keep discussing and debating the issues that make a real difference to people’s lives. I can only apologise that I could not get into the specifics of some of the constituency matters that he has mentioned. As he knows, we have further to go on the issue and we need to get the balance right between protecting green land and ensuring the homes that the country needs for the future. I look forward to continued dialogue with my hon. Friend, who is a champion for his local area, as the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill goes through the House. I very much welcome his engagement tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.